Obviously Osama bin Laden was never going to get a fair trial in a neutral court where he could testify to all his prior enablement by US and Saudi interests.
25
Not your best, Joe. Osama Bin Laden is dead. How?
To coin a phrase: "What difference does it make?"
To coin a phrase: "What difference does it make?"
10
Nocera unprofessionally uses a straw man argument to attack Bowden--there is a vast difference between some small fact later coming to light and the bizarre theory hatched by Hersh citing anonymous unvetted alleged sources.
19
I recognize that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, but we the public should not consider ourselves entitled to know every detail of every covert operation our government conducts.
16
The two ideas: 1) That the Pakistanis could have no idea that the world's most famous 6'5" fugitive was holed up for years in a massive compound just blocks from from their military's college, and 2) that the US would launch an assault on that compounds with no notice to that compound (and that the Pakistani's wouldn't notice or react to a helicopter crash in that location), have always been absurd. Hersh has, as usual, done the world a service, and the others have, as usual, served us warmed over government gruel.
23
You should realize that:
1. Your first point does not contradict the US version--the US has never said no one in the Pakistani military did not know he was there--this explains much of the US's mistrust of Pakistan.
2. Your second point is even weaker--the surprise assault was launched because of the suspicion that at least some Pakistanis would tip him off and the Pakistanis did react to the crash, just not instantly, similar to their many slow reactions to terrorist assaults.
1. Your first point does not contradict the US version--the US has never said no one in the Pakistani military did not know he was there--this explains much of the US's mistrust of Pakistan.
2. Your second point is even weaker--the surprise assault was launched because of the suspicion that at least some Pakistanis would tip him off and the Pakistanis did react to the crash, just not instantly, similar to their many slow reactions to terrorist assaults.
22
Why are we letting Osama bin Laden sow more turmoil among us even after he's dead?
9
It's a rule, Diana. On days when there's little news, we often turn to stiffs.
9
What do we really know about the bin Laden family connections with the Bush family? Would be a "crackling good tale" if it is ever a cover story in The New York Times Magazine.
24
A "shinier gloss on events than was warranted"? As in a few "shiners" to Osama bin Laden's eyes? Not a controversial point? As a journalist you should be ashamed of yourself.
2
I still can't do any better than the comment I submitted to the original Mahler piece, which I quote in part here:
“In terms of grand events, such as how a war erupts, we should get the history right, so that we may profit from it and perhaps err less dangerously in future. But with small events such as the death of a man, Osama bin Laden, which in the end is what this was, it's a lot less important to have indisputable knowledge of specifically how it occurred.
“Hersh, of course, is passionate about evangelizing the notion that the truth as it relates to government action always is extremely important. But, frankly, I couldn't care less how Osama died except knowing that it was from a bullet or bullets fired by the U.S. military; I don’t care if Jessica Chastain obtained immortality by getting to work for Tony Soprano before he died; I have no illusions about the extent of dysfunction and cross-purpose intrigue occurring in Pakistan's government, military and intelligence services; and I don’t even really care whether his remains were dropped out of a plane or an apocryphal story was concocted of a respectful Muslim burial at sea.”
In the end, despite drafts of history, first or otherwise, we’re sure that OBL is dead and that it was very important to kill this man.
“In terms of grand events, such as how a war erupts, we should get the history right, so that we may profit from it and perhaps err less dangerously in future. But with small events such as the death of a man, Osama bin Laden, which in the end is what this was, it's a lot less important to have indisputable knowledge of specifically how it occurred.
“Hersh, of course, is passionate about evangelizing the notion that the truth as it relates to government action always is extremely important. But, frankly, I couldn't care less how Osama died except knowing that it was from a bullet or bullets fired by the U.S. military; I don’t care if Jessica Chastain obtained immortality by getting to work for Tony Soprano before he died; I have no illusions about the extent of dysfunction and cross-purpose intrigue occurring in Pakistan's government, military and intelligence services; and I don’t even really care whether his remains were dropped out of a plane or an apocryphal story was concocted of a respectful Muslim burial at sea.”
In the end, despite drafts of history, first or otherwise, we’re sure that OBL is dead and that it was very important to kill this man.
5
Joe Nocera writes of his Wall Street book, "In the intervening five years, new information has come out." And, indeed, new information will likely come out about the bin Laden raid. But there is a proper journalistic way to amend a narrative.
Did Jonathan Mahler come up with new information about the raid? No. He published not evidence but speculation, much of it reckless. Robert Baer, a former CIA analyst, is allowed to dismiss the entire government account of the raid: "It’s all sort of hokey, the whole thing." Would Nocera like it if someone was given a prominent platform in the Times to say of his book, without evidence, "‘It’s all sort of hokey, the whole thing’’? Bowden's outrage is understandable.
Moreover, Mahler ignored "new information" that has emerged since Hersh's report. In late May, as many news outlets reported, the government declassified a trove of documents obtained at bin Laden's compound. Hersh claimed that nothing of value was found there. Hersh also insisted that there was no firefight. Yet Peter Bergen subsequently reported that he had visited the compound the day after the raid—and saw walls covered with bulletholes.
Such selective omissions, and the insinuating tone, are why Mahler's narrative has struck many responsible journalists as irresponsible.
Did Jonathan Mahler come up with new information about the raid? No. He published not evidence but speculation, much of it reckless. Robert Baer, a former CIA analyst, is allowed to dismiss the entire government account of the raid: "It’s all sort of hokey, the whole thing." Would Nocera like it if someone was given a prominent platform in the Times to say of his book, without evidence, "‘It’s all sort of hokey, the whole thing’’? Bowden's outrage is understandable.
Moreover, Mahler ignored "new information" that has emerged since Hersh's report. In late May, as many news outlets reported, the government declassified a trove of documents obtained at bin Laden's compound. Hersh claimed that nothing of value was found there. Hersh also insisted that there was no firefight. Yet Peter Bergen subsequently reported that he had visited the compound the day after the raid—and saw walls covered with bulletholes.
Such selective omissions, and the insinuating tone, are why Mahler's narrative has struck many responsible journalists as irresponsible.
10
The NYT infamously brought into the mythological connection between Saddam Hussein's alleged WMD's and 9/11/01 connection that misled America into ethnic sectarian enduring Iraqi Middle Eastern civil war disaster. Along with the NYT accepting the likely "shock and awe welcomed as liberator mission accomplished" ultimate military political socioeconomic American Iraqi invasion and occupation victory.
Osama Bin Laden,along with 15 of the nineteen 9/11/01 hijackers, was from the extremist Sunni Muslim Arab theocratic royal fossil fuel autocracy known as Saudi Arabia. And when Osama fled to Afghanistan he was welcomed by the Taliban. The Taliban was put in power by Pakistani intelligence in cooperation with the Haqqani network aided and abetted by American arms money and diplomatic cover. But for 9/11/01, the Taliban would likely still reign and rule in Afghanistan under the protection of the nuclear armed rogue Pakistani military paid for by American arms and money.
America knew or should have known where Osama Bin Laden was all of the time. The continuing rear-end protecting nonsense from the government to the contrary is beyond disingenuous. Mullah Omar dying in his sleep along with the living lingering taunts of Ayman Al Zawahiri are the real story of American perfidy, incompetence and hypocrisy.
Osama Bin Laden,along with 15 of the nineteen 9/11/01 hijackers, was from the extremist Sunni Muslim Arab theocratic royal fossil fuel autocracy known as Saudi Arabia. And when Osama fled to Afghanistan he was welcomed by the Taliban. The Taliban was put in power by Pakistani intelligence in cooperation with the Haqqani network aided and abetted by American arms money and diplomatic cover. But for 9/11/01, the Taliban would likely still reign and rule in Afghanistan under the protection of the nuclear armed rogue Pakistani military paid for by American arms and money.
America knew or should have known where Osama Bin Laden was all of the time. The continuing rear-end protecting nonsense from the government to the contrary is beyond disingenuous. Mullah Omar dying in his sleep along with the living lingering taunts of Ayman Al Zawahiri are the real story of American perfidy, incompetence and hypocrisy.
14
Is Osama bin Laden dead? Good. That's all I need to know.
Hersh's story, and Mahler's story about it, are tiny details. Did the Pakistanis cooperate with the raid, but didn't announce so publicly because their own people would be upset? Maybe. But who cares?
Much bluster about very little.
Hersh's story, and Mahler's story about it, are tiny details. Did the Pakistanis cooperate with the raid, but didn't announce so publicly because their own people would be upset? Maybe. But who cares?
Much bluster about very little.
27
CERTAIN FACTS about the mission that ended Bin Laden's life will not be known for many years. It's only recently in 2005 that the identify of Deep Throat was disclosed and confirmed by the reports who met with him. In my opinion, giving too much information to those violent Islamists to focus on as justification for attacking the US and other nations, warrants the delays. My belief is that Mahler did as well as he could with the facts disclosed to him.
Seymour Hersh is a brilliant journalist who has broken many majjor stories in his long and fabled career. Still, neither he nor anyone else now alive wil have the final say on the end of Bin Laden
Seymour Hersh is a brilliant journalist who has broken many majjor stories in his long and fabled career. Still, neither he nor anyone else now alive wil have the final say on the end of Bin Laden
6
You call Mahler's article "Journalism?" Really? It's tabloid nonsense pure and simple. It doesn't belong in this newspaper. I am quite disturbed that it was published in the NY Times.
12
Im sorry, but your column reads like Republican talking points. It's the government, therefore people lied. That's not a factual premise, it's an ideological one. You've presented no information in this column aside from the fact that people 'could have lied." Your own experience is not relevant and not comparable. The Times story was a hack job, pure and simple. Im shocked and disappointed that it would run such a story that lacks any factual foundation. Theories that people lied simply don't hold water.
24
As a 40 year veteran of the JFK affair I grin when I read this article and comments. Most use the same illogic to "deduce" whether a version or fact is true or not.
More than 35 years after the assassination, the ARRC declassified millions of new pages of historical data and testimony much of which deeply contradicts important facts of the official version. Of course "investigative journalists" havent read most of it. Too many "investigative journalists" want to work off of sources rather than records.
Surely, somewhere, there are pictures or not of OBL as described. Who took the pictures? When? What kind of camera was used? Where are they now. There are tens upon tens of detail records to this one simple fact, an issue of physical documentation that will eventually be established by the physical record or lack of same. Will the OBL photos go the way of JFK's brain? The facts have nothing to do with a "conspiracy" or occam's razor. They can't be changed, they can only be unearthed, established, or refuted.
This is a story whose details will remain murky for decades and change over time as the written record survives or not and is declassified, and as aged sources, no longer constrained for political or security reasons, come forth to "correct" the record, and get berated as unreliable for changing their story.
Been there, seen this. And for Hersh, what went around came around.
More than 35 years after the assassination, the ARRC declassified millions of new pages of historical data and testimony much of which deeply contradicts important facts of the official version. Of course "investigative journalists" havent read most of it. Too many "investigative journalists" want to work off of sources rather than records.
Surely, somewhere, there are pictures or not of OBL as described. Who took the pictures? When? What kind of camera was used? Where are they now. There are tens upon tens of detail records to this one simple fact, an issue of physical documentation that will eventually be established by the physical record or lack of same. Will the OBL photos go the way of JFK's brain? The facts have nothing to do with a "conspiracy" or occam's razor. They can't be changed, they can only be unearthed, established, or refuted.
This is a story whose details will remain murky for decades and change over time as the written record survives or not and is declassified, and as aged sources, no longer constrained for political or security reasons, come forth to "correct" the record, and get berated as unreliable for changing their story.
Been there, seen this. And for Hersh, what went around came around.
3
It is said, the more we know, the more we know we don't know. I'd never considered that this applies to journalism as well.
History has a way of rewriting itself. Nixon's newly available papers is a good example. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there are more than one or two viable narratives about the demise of bin Laden.
History has a way of rewriting itself. Nixon's newly available papers is a good example. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there are more than one or two viable narratives about the demise of bin Laden.
1
Theories concocted out of thin air? That's what lawyers do every day!
2
Leaving aside any known or unknown facts about the Bin Laden raid, I was shocked by the general weakness of Mahler's arguments. His general acceptance of Seymour Hersh's "legend" is unsupported by his writing throughout the last 20-years. For example, he wrote one article about an Army Ranger raid into Afghanistan during 2001, in which he claimed the Rangers suffered hundreds of unreported dead and wounded. The article was ridiculous and unworthy of publication in the New Yorker. During the spring of 2003 he wrote several pieces on the invasion of Iraq that proved completely devoid of any journalism. Mahler appears to ignore all of Hersh's discredited work in some type of journalistic professional courtesy.
Mahler also accepts several left-wing conspiracy theories as fact and uses them as historical precedent for governmental perfidy. It's as if I stated that 9/11 conspiracists might have a point because the government did kill Kennedy and fake the moon landings.
Just another shameful chapter in the long demise of a once great institution.
Mahler also accepts several left-wing conspiracy theories as fact and uses them as historical precedent for governmental perfidy. It's as if I stated that 9/11 conspiracists might have a point because the government did kill Kennedy and fake the moon landings.
Just another shameful chapter in the long demise of a once great institution.
2
No doubt a story such as OBL's capture and kill brought plaudits to many and of course embarrassment to the nation where he was "found": Pakistan. It never ceases to amaze me how often this nuclear armed nation has tricked its main beneficiary. Even as recently as yesterday there was admission by the former Pakistan Defense Minister first of the entire government apparatus knowing OBL's whereabouts and then strong denial during an interview with an Indian TV station. No doubt the Indians played up that to further demonize Pakistan but it is the layer upon layer of enigma Pakistan has wrapped into its affairs. Got to believe there is more to the OBL story!
4
Mr. Nocera is doing his part to keep new readers clicking on another New York Times magazine story that is more titillating than it is substantial. The main facts are not in dispute: Osama Bin Laden is dead, killed by Navy SEALS after a raid in Pakistan in 2011. The allegations Mr. Hersh is making are not provable in any case. He is saying there was major collusion between the Pakistanis and the Americans to kill Bin Laden. This not very difficult to believe, but nobody is going to say, sure, Seymour, and here is definitive proof. It isn't going to happen. It also doesn't change the fact that Pakistan is one of our many "frenemies" in the current, worldwide conflicts we are having with Muslim extremists. If they allowed us to enter their airspace to kill bin Laden, and take the credit for it, good for them. They must have really wanted him dead to make themselves look like chumps in defense of their country. This is a non-story.
1
Any journalistic account is a best guess--- but it just that, a best guess. In today's journalistic world, we don't even have best guesses anymore, just best rumors. What really happened in that desert will be up to historians, who, when all the documents are unclassified (which will not be in my lifetime), may shed some light on what really happened to Bin Laden.
1
The story of OBL killing should be viewed with relevance to timeline. At the time he was killed he was no longer the leader of his organization - he was expandable to everyone. The Pakistanis no longer needed him either as he had no pull on the Taliban. So why did they still protect him? To save face - and to find an easy way out of a backlash, if he were to be killed, from their own extremists. They must have hoped he would die a natural death and just faded from history. However that would not be optimal for the Obama administration and its optics. So I am sure they planned an end - sometimes the best laid plans go wrong - helicopters do crash. The only thing new from that we learned is that we have a new stealth helicopter that has a tendency to crash. I hope we are not ordering a billion of those and making some defense contractor rich.
3
Truth from the government? Only recently documents have been de-classified that reveal that the CIA, by their own admission, purposefully misdirected the Warren Commission because the lone gunman theory was best suited to their objectives in quickly closing the case. This is not a theory but a fact and you can look it up. That's a revelation 52 years after the murder so who knows what they will make public about OBL in the next half century?
7
"There is no such thing as the truth, and that is the truth."
5
It seems that Nocera is "rising to the defense" of Mahler purely as a point of principle. There is little, if anything, in this column that provides tangible support for what Mahler has written. There are no new "facts", revelations, or insights that suggest what Mahler wrote is credible. Only a defense of his "right" as a journalist to float his interpretation of the information that he processed.
So, in the end, what Nocera seems to be defending is the right for a journalist to "spin" their tale any way that works to get a story published.
Personally, I'd prefer higher standards for journalistic integrity. But, unfortunately, I don't have a NYT opinion writer to act on my behalf -- only a space for making a comment....which is better than nothing!
So, in the end, what Nocera seems to be defending is the right for a journalist to "spin" their tale any way that works to get a story published.
Personally, I'd prefer higher standards for journalistic integrity. But, unfortunately, I don't have a NYT opinion writer to act on my behalf -- only a space for making a comment....which is better than nothing!
7
My problem with Mahler's piece is that he seemed to think that we should be surprised that there may be unknown details about the special forces operation to get Bin Laden. Do we ever learn everything about what happens in war. I doubt it. Meanwhile, like some defense attorney trying to nullify expert testimony, we're asked what if this or that really happened? What if everyone lied?
5
Mr. Nocera is doing his part to keep new readers clicking on another New York Times magazine story that is more titillating than it is substantial. The main facts are not in dispute: Osama Bin Laden is dead, killed by Navy SEALS after a raid in Pakistan in 2011. The allegations Mr. Hersh is making are not provable in any case. He is saying there was major collusion between the Pakistanis and the Americans to kill Bin Laden. This not very difficult to believe, but nobody is going to say, sure, Seymour, and here is definitive proof. It isn't going to happen. It also doesn't change the fact that Pakistan is one of our many "frenemies" in the current, worldwide conflicts we are having with Muslim extremists. If they allowed us to enter their airspace to kill bin Laden, and take the credit for it, good for them. They must have really wanted him dead to make themselves look like chumps in defense of their country. This is a non-story.
7
I did not read Bowden's "The Finish" but read "Black Hawk Down". Black Hawk Down read like a 12 year old boy's vision of Delta Force. It could not possibly be considered objective reporting. It was an entertaining action adventure book. Bowden clearly idealizes the elite American military.
I have no expectation that senior government/military figures will be truthful or non-truthful in communicating "facts" about any event. Information that is dispersed is always a tool and the architects of the Bin Laden narrative have great incentive to "highlight" the positive and suppress the negative.
I have no expectation that senior government/military figures will be truthful or non-truthful in communicating "facts" about any event. Information that is dispersed is always a tool and the architects of the Bin Laden narrative have great incentive to "highlight" the positive and suppress the negative.
5
I second ecco's point, in this forum, that the problem with Mahler's piece is largely a problem with its journalism: no facts were reported that allow the reader to address the article's title question. With the support from the Times, Mahler should have added his own account not re-reported that of others.
A valid piece of media criticism on Osama bin Laden reporting wold be welcome; the New York Times piece was not. It threw out a few discredited assertions from Hersh and then ventured into the hysterical world of internet rumor and conspiracy theory. It brought nothing new to the party -- and then just said flatly we have no idea as to what happened.
Why should Joe Nocero and Mark Bowden be upset about this? Because it does not critique journalism process and trade craft. It ignores it. Of course, we will learn more about bin Laden's death. That does not mean we know nothing now. Of course, Nocero is learning more about the meltdown, but he would be less generous if the New York Times would report that he was conned by the government completely and we know nothing of it.
And that is Joe's mistake here. He discounts the underpinning of good journalism as practiced by Mark Bowden and others and salutes those who embrace rumor and say "who knows." The technique uses weightless information to counteract weighted facts and equates the two. Bowden is not outraged at the criticism but by the simplicity and ignorance of this metric. I fear Joe misses the major point. Mahler feels the issue is confused, but presents no facts. Such belief-driven journalism is what Joe Nocero stands against. Else why would he criticize Aaron Sorkin and Jobs? What a disappointment to see a journalists hero of mine so miss the point. Facts matter Joe. I know because you told me that.
Why should Joe Nocero and Mark Bowden be upset about this? Because it does not critique journalism process and trade craft. It ignores it. Of course, we will learn more about bin Laden's death. That does not mean we know nothing now. Of course, Nocero is learning more about the meltdown, but he would be less generous if the New York Times would report that he was conned by the government completely and we know nothing of it.
And that is Joe's mistake here. He discounts the underpinning of good journalism as practiced by Mark Bowden and others and salutes those who embrace rumor and say "who knows." The technique uses weightless information to counteract weighted facts and equates the two. Bowden is not outraged at the criticism but by the simplicity and ignorance of this metric. I fear Joe misses the major point. Mahler feels the issue is confused, but presents no facts. Such belief-driven journalism is what Joe Nocero stands against. Else why would he criticize Aaron Sorkin and Jobs? What a disappointment to see a journalists hero of mine so miss the point. Facts matter Joe. I know because you told me that.
The most wanted person in the history of the world, was dumped in the ocean.
Let me say that again, he was dumped in the ocean. the entire Bin laden story is fake. the man was killed in late 2001. there was coverage of this in the Arab press by the way, it was just blacked out here. Benazhir Bhutto named his killer as Omar Shiekh, she was the head of Pakistan at the time soon to be assassinated in 2007. She clearly states Bin Laden was killed in 2001, then calmly names the man who did it. This is found with a simple google search by the way, try Bhutto names Bin Laden killer. The New York Times is read all the world, please tell the truth. The press can become the hero in this country if they would only do their jobs, instead of re writing government propaganda in their own style. We are at a crossroads in the human race, the press seems to be on the wrong side of what is right, my advice for the times is to hire someone like me to give people a look at the truth for a change.
Let me say that again, he was dumped in the ocean. the entire Bin laden story is fake. the man was killed in late 2001. there was coverage of this in the Arab press by the way, it was just blacked out here. Benazhir Bhutto named his killer as Omar Shiekh, she was the head of Pakistan at the time soon to be assassinated in 2007. She clearly states Bin Laden was killed in 2001, then calmly names the man who did it. This is found with a simple google search by the way, try Bhutto names Bin Laden killer. The New York Times is read all the world, please tell the truth. The press can become the hero in this country if they would only do their jobs, instead of re writing government propaganda in their own style. We are at a crossroads in the human race, the press seems to be on the wrong side of what is right, my advice for the times is to hire someone like me to give people a look at the truth for a change.
1
So Joe Nocera was misled by Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson, either actively or through omission, and that two-person fraud implies that widespread collusion in misinformation campaigns is likely true? So we didn't really land on the moon because Bernanke and Paulson are self-interested and parsimonious with the truth? I'm not one to believe that people with strong motivations to mislead won't conspire to do so, but I am one who believes that once the conspirators exceed the number three, the truth, or at least a different story, will appear. Undoubtedly new details or 'corrected' ones will appear about OBL's death, but I do doubt they will be as radically different from the current narrative as Hersh or his enabler Mahler respectively assert and imply.
3
My professional career in journalism, and later politics, might be relevant to this discussion. Writing about events afterwards (whether 18 months or many years later) by relying on accounts of participants is always going to be sketchy at best. People, including historians and journalists, are prone to create narratives that are intended to protect or reveal information that best suits their intention. No one sets out to write a book or magazine article, or work of history, without an idea of the outcome the writer desires.
All of which makes finding the truth such a challenge, like driving through heavy fog. What we mostly read about past events is at best an approximation and, more typically, just the latest version of what might have happened.
All of which makes finding the truth such a challenge, like driving through heavy fog. What we mostly read about past events is at best an approximation and, more typically, just the latest version of what might have happened.
6
Writing the best book you with the information then available often results in something close to pure fiction. Anyone who reads for general knowledge should be very careful, since mistakes slip into the historical record and stay there. The problem is that if you don't know other facts, if you can't pull them out of memory or experience, you are left with whatever the author tells you. A large portion of doubt is a useful tool.
Writers also tend to bend fact to fit the narrative they have been convinced to accept or one they believe just because it is a good tale. With deadlines approaching, story becomes more critical than trying to iron out contradictions, one reason that some writers put off their deadlines for years, trying to sort through fact and come out on the side of truthfulness over drama.
Having read "Black Hawk Down", I would approach "The Finish" with great care and concern. It is fun to be taken for a ride, but I want to get off where I want to, not where the author is likely to want to deposit me. Many books, especially those that dip into contemporary history, are not ones that can be used to form critical judgement, but rather, once read, form a loose backdrop for future consideration of those and other events.
By the way, it is interesting to note that the author of "Black Hawk..." was subsequently invited to discuss the subject by at least one American military academy. It would be good to know how those tough critics reacted.
Writers also tend to bend fact to fit the narrative they have been convinced to accept or one they believe just because it is a good tale. With deadlines approaching, story becomes more critical than trying to iron out contradictions, one reason that some writers put off their deadlines for years, trying to sort through fact and come out on the side of truthfulness over drama.
Having read "Black Hawk Down", I would approach "The Finish" with great care and concern. It is fun to be taken for a ride, but I want to get off where I want to, not where the author is likely to want to deposit me. Many books, especially those that dip into contemporary history, are not ones that can be used to form critical judgement, but rather, once read, form a loose backdrop for future consideration of those and other events.
By the way, it is interesting to note that the author of "Black Hawk..." was subsequently invited to discuss the subject by at least one American military academy. It would be good to know how those tough critics reacted.
10
When I last noticed Sy Hersh, he was falling for some forged documents that implicated JFK in more sexual scandal. (The forger had anachronistically included a ZIP code in an address, too early.) No one is as easy to con as a cynic, as they say; when you don't believe the obvious, you'll believe anything. And Hersh's baroque version of Osama bin Laden's death requires a massive conspiracy in multiple quarters, not just of omission, but massive fabrication, down to the a fortiori simulated broadcast of the raid.
It's quite sad to see him try to repeat his old glories, but that doesn't mean we have to buy into what are indeed crackpot theories.
It's quite sad to see him try to repeat his old glories, but that doesn't mean we have to buy into what are indeed crackpot theories.
15
"The famous reporter comes across as a bit of a crank."
Thank God for cranks.
Comedy is also a good way to express political truths, from Mark Twain through Will Rogers to John Stewart, it is a grand tradition.
But there are some things that just need a crank too. H.L. Mencken gave us that, some comedy, but always a crank.
"Eccentric or strange, typically because highly unorthodox" is a crying need always, but especially in today's world.
So what if he is mistaken? I'm not sure he is mistaken, but the risk goes with the territory, and we are far better off for it.
Thank God for cranks.
Comedy is also a good way to express political truths, from Mark Twain through Will Rogers to John Stewart, it is a grand tradition.
But there are some things that just need a crank too. H.L. Mencken gave us that, some comedy, but always a crank.
"Eccentric or strange, typically because highly unorthodox" is a crying need always, but especially in today's world.
So what if he is mistaken? I'm not sure he is mistaken, but the risk goes with the territory, and we are far better off for it.
18
"So what if he [Mr. Hersch] is mistaken?"
So what? That's a rather cavalier dismissal of the destructive power of misinformation, especially when that information is purported to be "the truth." And the "risk" you speak of--again cavalierly--that "goes along with the territory" would be what? The spread of hysterical belief among the millions of gullible people--worldwide--who now get their "truth" from murky conspiracy theories that are ubiquitous on the internet? You realize, of course, that your beloved cranks--which, by the way, on any given planet would never include the likes of Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and John Stewart--are sewing the kind of cynicism that breeds widespread apathy, ignorance, and fear. How does that, as you claim, make us "far better off"?
So what? That's a rather cavalier dismissal of the destructive power of misinformation, especially when that information is purported to be "the truth." And the "risk" you speak of--again cavalierly--that "goes along with the territory" would be what? The spread of hysterical belief among the millions of gullible people--worldwide--who now get their "truth" from murky conspiracy theories that are ubiquitous on the internet? You realize, of course, that your beloved cranks--which, by the way, on any given planet would never include the likes of Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and John Stewart--are sewing the kind of cynicism that breeds widespread apathy, ignorance, and fear. How does that, as you claim, make us "far better off"?
Seems odd to me a high value target with a ton of information about the crime of the century would be blown away before he could be interrogated, much less tried. Of course, as with the Lone Nut, dead men speak no evils, eh?
But there are many Qs I would prefer the media to tackle finally. Such as where did US Military command transfer once the Pentagon was "compromised" by its hit? Or who was in the urgency committee after the first two planes struck the Towers, what did they recommend, where did the committee meet?
But there are many Qs I would prefer the media to tackle finally. Such as where did US Military command transfer once the Pentagon was "compromised" by its hit? Or who was in the urgency committee after the first two planes struck the Towers, what did they recommend, where did the committee meet?
7
It would have been foolish to take Osama alive. He would have loved the exposure. A bullet in the head ended it.
Could it be that it wouldn't have been possible to capture Bin Laden alive without killing a lot more people?
Journalism is definitely not a science but rather an art of telling a story by piecing together different parts of a puzzle accurately. This is the rational reasoning behind administrators placing schools of journalism in the Humanities category rather than the Sciences. This same storytelling is exemplified in the childhood game of telephone in which one person holds a tin can to their ear attached to a string & listens for a message which then gets repeated from person to person in a chain. By the time the original story comes around again to the primary listener, it's been completely transformed with embellishments, inaccuracies, lost information leaving us a portrait of a degraded image of the original sense of events. Thus we learn from the game that humans are not Xerox machines but rather people who project our own mental images onto existing reality which ultimately ends up telling the world more about the subjective listeners' expectations, skills, degree of understanding, attentiveness, motivations, etc. than an impartial account of history. When the motivation of turning a story into a profit like slick magazines, the events become even more skewed in favor of entertainment & national propaganda value. There is a reason that David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, spins stories to bolster anti-Russian propaganda including his one sided reporting on Ukraine & support for Hillary Clinton & that is to cozy up to existing US political power.
8
I spent three decades plus either in Washington or otherwise working with some of its agencies, including the intelligence community. When it comes to conspiracy theories about Washington, from personal experience I concluded that the time it takes for a conspiracy to unravel is directly proportional to the number of people involved in that conspiracy.
On the OBL story, there were several hundred individuals involved in some part of the operation, from the initial planning to the writing of the final after action report. Had Hersh's account of a very extensive conspiracy been valid, reports of the conspiracy would have begun leaking within days of OBL's death. It didn't happen, and all of whom were most involved are as adamant of their initial accounts. I recommend the self professed anti-establishment doubters read Bowden's Vanity Fair rebuttal to the Hersh claims and consider, if only briefly, how impossible such a claimed conspiracy could have lasted this long.
Consider also why would all of these people so recklessly jeopardize their reputations for no real reason.
On the OBL story, there were several hundred individuals involved in some part of the operation, from the initial planning to the writing of the final after action report. Had Hersh's account of a very extensive conspiracy been valid, reports of the conspiracy would have begun leaking within days of OBL's death. It didn't happen, and all of whom were most involved are as adamant of their initial accounts. I recommend the self professed anti-establishment doubters read Bowden's Vanity Fair rebuttal to the Hersh claims and consider, if only briefly, how impossible such a claimed conspiracy could have lasted this long.
Consider also why would all of these people so recklessly jeopardize their reputations for no real reason.
57
Extensive conspiracy?
ISI knowledge and facilitation of the raid needn't have involved hardly anyone on the US side, and scarcely more on the ISI side. And it's clear that hiding ISI knowledge and facilitation of the raid serves everyone's interests, including the individuals who would have to keep it under their hats. That Bowden's sources only know the part of the story that they needed to know isn't surprising.
Seymour Hersh has earned the right to be taken seriously.
ISI knowledge and facilitation of the raid needn't have involved hardly anyone on the US side, and scarcely more on the ISI side. And it's clear that hiding ISI knowledge and facilitation of the raid serves everyone's interests, including the individuals who would have to keep it under their hats. That Bowden's sources only know the part of the story that they needed to know isn't surprising.
Seymour Hersh has earned the right to be taken seriously.
4
Who cares? Some things have to be kept secret, e.g., intelligence sources and cooperation by foreign governments that want deniability. I didn't expect to be told the whole truth and I don't want to be, in the absence of evidence of government wrongdoing.
29
Hersh's version and the more official one primarily differ in three ways, how much Pakistant officials knew and whether bin Laden was a prisoner or protected by the Pakistanis? Since we suspect that many in Pakistan's leadership are enemies of the US, I hardly think it matters. We must work with Pakistan but if we trust them, we are nuts.
49
Normal relations with Iran would obviate relying so heavily on Pakistan. That would give us an alternative route into Afghanistan and relieve us of paying blackmail in the form of foreign aid to Pakistan.
Unlike Iran, Pakistan not only has a nuclear weapons program, it has actual nukes. Pakistan's government is far less stable than Iran's. Pakistan routinely uses terror as a weapon of state policy to a far greater extent than does Iran. Pakistan helped create the Taliban and sheltered it, and the al Qaeda leadership, from US forces. Pakistan has never even offered to put its nukes on the negotiating table.
All things considered, Pakistan is a greater threat to the US than is Iran.
Unlike Iran, Pakistan not only has a nuclear weapons program, it has actual nukes. Pakistan's government is far less stable than Iran's. Pakistan routinely uses terror as a weapon of state policy to a far greater extent than does Iran. Pakistan helped create the Taliban and sheltered it, and the al Qaeda leadership, from US forces. Pakistan has never even offered to put its nukes on the negotiating table.
All things considered, Pakistan is a greater threat to the US than is Iran.
2
Sixteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi. Khalid Sheikh Mohamed was a Pakistani. Who paid the price for 9/11 (besides Saddam Hussein)? Afghanistan and Iraq. Makes sense, right?
1
Good one. I read BHD and thought it was pretty good. Wasn't much interested in the OBL manhunt. Always felt he was probably driving a cab in NYC or Karachi. Even better he was set up in a nice pad, wives and all. So the manhunt isn't so important, it is why he was allowed to live in such nice digs in the country of one of our "closest" allies. That is the story I want to read. Doubt if the scamsters who act as sources can tell us that one. It might tarnish their reputation and then they couldn't write books or help write Hollywood movie scripts.
17
There are so many conspiracy theories abounding these days from the shooting of JFK to the 9/11 event, which the 9/11 Truth Organization seem to have very credible evidence that go against the Official version.
If there is a 'true' story a book will be written to contradict it so Truth becomes something in the eye of the beholder.
With the bin Laden killing I believe that his body should have been taken back to the US so that official photos and DNA etc could have been seen or produced to prove that he was shot dead .
We have not seen other personal items or other tangible evidence that it was really bin Laden.
After all, 'Official' stories came out of the female 'heroic' GI who was lost and looked after by the Iraqi doctors and when they tried to take her to the US side they were shot at.
She admitted she was not a hero and the movie of her raid and release was all staged.
I guess Elvis is really dead although many have spotted him in Las Vegas and other places and maybe Marilyn is doing the Greta Garbo thing and just wants to be left alone.
Who knows between Truth and Fantasy these days.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
If there is a 'true' story a book will be written to contradict it so Truth becomes something in the eye of the beholder.
With the bin Laden killing I believe that his body should have been taken back to the US so that official photos and DNA etc could have been seen or produced to prove that he was shot dead .
We have not seen other personal items or other tangible evidence that it was really bin Laden.
After all, 'Official' stories came out of the female 'heroic' GI who was lost and looked after by the Iraqi doctors and when they tried to take her to the US side they were shot at.
She admitted she was not a hero and the movie of her raid and release was all staged.
I guess Elvis is really dead although many have spotted him in Las Vegas and other places and maybe Marilyn is doing the Greta Garbo thing and just wants to be left alone.
Who knows between Truth and Fantasy these days.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
4
Actually, photos of the body and DNA samples were taken at and after the raid, which were used to positively ID bin Laden, according to news sources. In fact, I seem to remember a bit of scandal when some of the photos leaked. Now, of course you don't have to believe any of that. I'm more inclined to accept that we know some but certainly not all of the facts about the manhunt at this fairly early point in time, but also that as with most important historical events, as time progresses we will learn much more, or at least how much we really don't know.
6
The question underlying all of our debates today is how do we know what we know? This question is posed here with regard to journalism. David Brooks writes today about the lost gravitational pull. of power centers.
How is it that birthers question where President Obama was born despite overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence? How is it that global warming deniers persist in denying despite overwhelming consensus from the scientific community? How is it that the leading Republican candidate is just a few syllables shy of pronouncing 9/11 an inside job?
Here's how. Cynical authorities have abused our trust again and again. We can't trust our elected officials. We can't trust our doctors. We can't trust our bankers. We can't trust our teachers. We can't trust our police. We can't even trust Volkswagen.
How is it that birthers question where President Obama was born despite overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence? How is it that global warming deniers persist in denying despite overwhelming consensus from the scientific community? How is it that the leading Republican candidate is just a few syllables shy of pronouncing 9/11 an inside job?
Here's how. Cynical authorities have abused our trust again and again. We can't trust our elected officials. We can't trust our doctors. We can't trust our bankers. We can't trust our teachers. We can't trust our police. We can't even trust Volkswagen.
97
what insight mr mahler provides toward illuminating the construction of narratives by reporters comes rather from his own effort than substantive analysis of how bowden and hersh hung theirs from the clothespins, if you will, gathered from sources.
that any story is subject to development, revision, perhaps even refutation, by subsequent discovery, is practically a "duh"...the "butterfield papers" just dumped on bob woodward's desk prove that for now and evermore.
hersh had a point about mahler's "media story" being a cop-out, but not necessarily because he
chooses to go his own way, it is rather because, instead of schematizing the construction of narrative, he settles for a far simpler form of questioning and speculation that denatures his own stated purpose...those blank stares that filkins got from pakitani government operatives might be worth pursuing, not to mention the radar system that hersh offers as another stepping stone into a narrative that contradicts the oh-so-neat, (film-script neat?), version and, so, maybe a window into the narrative construction process.
that any story is subject to development, revision, perhaps even refutation, by subsequent discovery, is practically a "duh"...the "butterfield papers" just dumped on bob woodward's desk prove that for now and evermore.
hersh had a point about mahler's "media story" being a cop-out, but not necessarily because he
chooses to go his own way, it is rather because, instead of schematizing the construction of narrative, he settles for a far simpler form of questioning and speculation that denatures his own stated purpose...those blank stares that filkins got from pakitani government operatives might be worth pursuing, not to mention the radar system that hersh offers as another stepping stone into a narrative that contradicts the oh-so-neat, (film-script neat?), version and, so, maybe a window into the narrative construction process.
3
In every profession, and journalism is no exception, after-the-fact criticism of the professional’s performance is a touchy subject. The professional, knowing that he performed skillfully and honestly, is often hyper-sensitive to any suggestion that something may have been overlooked or misinterpreted.
Mark Bowden’s reaction to the story by Jonathan Mahler appears to be that sort of understandable, but unjustified, resentment. Bowden is a good investigator and writer, and he did a very good job on the Osama bin Laden story. Exactly the same thing can be said about Mahler.
The problem is the countless internet conspiracy theorists. Frankly, both Bowden and Mahler need to ignore the wild-eyed bloggers – just as the rest of us do. It also might help if both writers accept the calming reassurance of a seasoned reporter like Joe Nocera
Mark Bowden’s reaction to the story by Jonathan Mahler appears to be that sort of understandable, but unjustified, resentment. Bowden is a good investigator and writer, and he did a very good job on the Osama bin Laden story. Exactly the same thing can be said about Mahler.
The problem is the countless internet conspiracy theorists. Frankly, both Bowden and Mahler need to ignore the wild-eyed bloggers – just as the rest of us do. It also might help if both writers accept the calming reassurance of a seasoned reporter like Joe Nocera
11
Why would anyone challenge Johnathan Mahler's assumption there is more to know about the bin Laden raid? There are very few stories involving the activities of intelligence services which are known in full and, logically, there shouldn't be if those organizations have done their jobs well. Just on the face of it, if you were told bin Laden would be found two miles from a large Pakistani military installation with relatively little security would you not assume there is more to the story?
42
OBL was only a commodity for Pakistani rulers (the Pakistani Army and the ISI). OBL got played, and USA bought the play. It is that simple. Pakistan is all smoke and mirrors and too many lies, so much so that existence of its 170 million people, stability of South Asia and world peace in general stay seriously threatened, all because of despotic nature of people who control the Islamic Bomb/s. I honestly believe the narrative of Mr Hersh. The body language of Obama and Hillary, while watching the "hunt" live on a White House monitor, and Obama's speech soon after provides ample proof that the operation had not gone smoothly as planned. Pakistani Army and ISI were forced to play dumb and dumberer, one more time, to prevent the unraveling of details of a secret deal that had gone down badly (when the Chinnok crashed in OBL compound). Obama was ready with a jubilant speech declaring demise of OBL (after a brief but intense/dramatic fire fight to save face of Pakistani "hosts" in the muslim/Arab world) in mountain caves bordering AF-PAK border, instead he had to awkwardly confess a covert man hunt in the chief garrison town of Pakistan.
9
A far better response would be to read Bowden's refutation of Hersh's conspiracy theory carefully, and then explain, point for point, why it is wrong. I submit that you cannot do that, because Bowden's argument is far too thorough, detailed, and well sourced. What he says is not a matter of mere "opinion," it is a matter of gathering the facts.
Far too many people confuse the lawyer's tactic of trying to establish "reasonable doubt" in a courtroom with actual innocence, hence all the conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination. We don't need another tradition of such confusion over the death of bin Laden.
Far too many people confuse the lawyer's tactic of trying to establish "reasonable doubt" in a courtroom with actual innocence, hence all the conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination. We don't need another tradition of such confusion over the death of bin Laden.
28
' “Stories like this make me feel that it is a losing battle against pure speculation, and theories that are concocted” out of thin air. '
Welcome to the age of idiotic certainty, where all sorts of fervently held nonsense comes out of thin air. Everyone has the right to express an opinion, but not the qualifications to be correct.
Welcome to the age of idiotic certainty, where all sorts of fervently held nonsense comes out of thin air. Everyone has the right to express an opinion, but not the qualifications to be correct.
2
What do we know about international intelligence on "WMD in Iraq" having been preferentially interpreted or deliberately manipulated so as to concoct the "need" for a needless invasion that turned out to be America's worst-ever foreign policy blunder? That remains the story needing to be written. In it, I daresay real conspiracy will be found.
70
Perhaps The Donald may bring that fiasco back to American consciousness and those responsible be held accountable..
This article by Nocera exposes a trend among our commentator elite: an inability to deal with matters of degree. They fall victim to the inclination to provide a "balanced" view of two sets of behavior that are wildly incommensurable. "They did it too," is often the response of those defending House republicans for their insistence on voting against the Affordable Care Act more than 50 times to register their dislike. Or to Senate republicans when they refuse to bring judicial candidates forward for a vote, or using the filibuster over and over again to stop legislation from moving forward. The behaviors are not comparable: democrats did not behave the way republicans are now behaving Washington.
Similarly, when a columnist compares the work of a Bowden with the recent London Review article of Hersh, as Mahler did in the New York Times Magazine, he is comparing nourishing food to dangerously decomposed garbage. And finding similarities: they both register the presence of bacteria. But how does a Joe Nocera defend the absurd position of Mahler? By citing our inability to know the complete truth about anything. A pathetic waste of our time and an insult to our intelligence that happens far too often in this day of sadly diminished journalism. Yes, our political profession is damaged goods but what is happening to our schools of journalism when a Nocera can publish this kind of nonsense without fearing a withering critique from his fellow professionals?
Similarly, when a columnist compares the work of a Bowden with the recent London Review article of Hersh, as Mahler did in the New York Times Magazine, he is comparing nourishing food to dangerously decomposed garbage. And finding similarities: they both register the presence of bacteria. But how does a Joe Nocera defend the absurd position of Mahler? By citing our inability to know the complete truth about anything. A pathetic waste of our time and an insult to our intelligence that happens far too often in this day of sadly diminished journalism. Yes, our political profession is damaged goods but what is happening to our schools of journalism when a Nocera can publish this kind of nonsense without fearing a withering critique from his fellow professionals?
22
Poor analogy. Bernanke and Paulson were implicated in the meltdown. They had ample reason to doctor the record to avoid looking bad in the Lehman downfall.
Neither Bowden nor Hersh were part of the OBL takedown. Bowden's explanation of his research in Vanity Fair is far more credible than Hersh's anonymous sources.
Neither Bowden nor Hersh were part of the OBL takedown. Bowden's explanation of his research in Vanity Fair is far more credible than Hersh's anonymous sources.
5
I'm really growing tired of nay-sayers that dismiss any question of the accuracy of Bin Laden's death to be in the realm of the "Truthers." The predictable plot point goes from being exacerbated to pushing further into the "fake moon landing" or whatever lunacy that perpetuates myth. Yes, I'll be the first to admit people have lost their minds. While I've watched much of the "architects" that discount the fall of "Building 7" I draw the line at many of the outlandish over-reach. However "out there" such prognosticators may be, how on earth can any sensible person not be pulling their hair out with regards to Hersch's very believable claim that the Saudi's were paying the Paki's protection money? Just do a rewind in your mind to encompass what we know and don't know from the 9/11 Commission Reports, particularly the 26 Redacted pages as it relates to Saudi. Just look at our relationship with them today; the maintenance of oil flow, the insane sale of arms, the duplicitous behavior of the Saudi's with regards to all things ISIS, Qaeda, Jihad, etc., etc. The irony of Nocera's piece really struck me with his analogy to Lehman. His big epiphany is Bernanke's revelation that the Fed could have done more to save them? Really? Is Nocera aware of what Fuld and company were actually doing that put them and everyone else in that fateful predicament to begin with? I guess it's now in the realm of "Fake Moon Landing" and thus the reason no one has wound up in jail.
10
I too found the Mahler article balanced. He did not buy into the conspiracy theories but only suggested that, with the passage of time, new information may come up that may require us to modify the current narrative.
History is often mistaken to be a recording of "facts" and therefore people believe it to be the "truth." In reality, though, recorded history depends on who the scribe is. By noting this I am not necessarily claiming that historians lie or twist facts (although that too happens) but simply that it is a narrative from one vantage point.
For those who don;t fully buy into this notion I urge you to see Roshomon!
History is often mistaken to be a recording of "facts" and therefore people believe it to be the "truth." In reality, though, recorded history depends on who the scribe is. By noting this I am not necessarily claiming that historians lie or twist facts (although that too happens) but simply that it is a narrative from one vantage point.
For those who don;t fully buy into this notion I urge you to see Roshomon!
27
Exactly what are the differences in the stories Mr. Nocera
is talking about -- this essay reads like a book that starts
on the fourth chapter.
I agree with Mr. Nocera's point about facts -- we should all live long
enough to find out if the Warren Commission got it mostly right or
not, for instance -- and the high odds that early versions can be
manipulated due to contemporaneous pressures.
On the other hand, it seems certain, according to all stories, that
there was a definite "shoot to kill" directive on Bin Laden. Armed or
not, sick or healthy, the US Government did not want Bin Laden put
on trial, but just dead.
We always see our enemies in a war as criminals today, just as our enemies see us as criminals, as well. The formalities of European nation-state hostilities in the 1800's, and the 20th century Geneva Conventions, are
probably gone forever, predicated on notions of a higher morality that
no longer exists in reality, if it ever did truly exist.
is talking about -- this essay reads like a book that starts
on the fourth chapter.
I agree with Mr. Nocera's point about facts -- we should all live long
enough to find out if the Warren Commission got it mostly right or
not, for instance -- and the high odds that early versions can be
manipulated due to contemporaneous pressures.
On the other hand, it seems certain, according to all stories, that
there was a definite "shoot to kill" directive on Bin Laden. Armed or
not, sick or healthy, the US Government did not want Bin Laden put
on trial, but just dead.
We always see our enemies in a war as criminals today, just as our enemies see us as criminals, as well. The formalities of European nation-state hostilities in the 1800's, and the 20th century Geneva Conventions, are
probably gone forever, predicated on notions of a higher morality that
no longer exists in reality, if it ever did truly exist.
9
If they were able to hoist bin Laden's body into a helicopter, then they certainly could have brought him all the way to a safe U.S. territory where there would be ample room to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was indeed the body of the most heinous killer in modern times. The haste of disposing of the body, however -- out of respect for bin Laden and Muslim customs, no less! -- only strained credulity.
A useful and thoughtful comment; thank you. As readers, on some level we end up reading everything we can, and then making a decision as to what we think happened -- and how certain we are that what we think happened is true.
It is useful to nail down exactly where the different "narratives" diverge. On many basics, they either don't, or the balance of strong probabilities so strongly tilt one way that we can be reasonably sure what happened: there was a quite daring raid; Bin Laden was taken out; whether he was buried at sea or otherwise is not crucial, but it seems much more likely than not hat the government has photos, which they were going to release if it was contested whether Obama was really dead. The issue is whether we had contacts in Pakistan that knew about the raid in advance, and either helped by shutting up or by providing information. Here the "plausibility factor" swings to making it quite possible that there was such a contact: I would hope that our diplomat/spies would have them; it defies credibility that Bin Laden would be for so long in that place without officials in Pakistan knowing; and -- most importantly -- it would make perfect diplomatic sense for us to work with Pakistan to contrive a "Sleeping Beauty" denial of their active knowledge and possible help.
I don't think we have to choose among wildly differing narratives, this core strikes me as reasonably clear. Good that we live in a real democracy where different narratives are possible.
It is useful to nail down exactly where the different "narratives" diverge. On many basics, they either don't, or the balance of strong probabilities so strongly tilt one way that we can be reasonably sure what happened: there was a quite daring raid; Bin Laden was taken out; whether he was buried at sea or otherwise is not crucial, but it seems much more likely than not hat the government has photos, which they were going to release if it was contested whether Obama was really dead. The issue is whether we had contacts in Pakistan that knew about the raid in advance, and either helped by shutting up or by providing information. Here the "plausibility factor" swings to making it quite possible that there was such a contact: I would hope that our diplomat/spies would have them; it defies credibility that Bin Laden would be for so long in that place without officials in Pakistan knowing; and -- most importantly -- it would make perfect diplomatic sense for us to work with Pakistan to contrive a "Sleeping Beauty" denial of their active knowledge and possible help.
I don't think we have to choose among wildly differing narratives, this core strikes me as reasonably clear. Good that we live in a real democracy where different narratives are possible.
2
"...if it was contested whether Obama was really dead."
Let me clear that up for you: Barack Obama is alive and well.
Let me clear that up for you: Barack Obama is alive and well.
6
Osama, not Obama!!!
2
What an evasion of the issue.
2
The Seymour Hersh story primarily relied on a single unnamed source and therefore did meet minimum journalistic guidelines.
30
A very interesting read. Surely we don't know everything about Osama Bin Laden's death. Four years later and several "tell all" books later, it would still be naive to believe that all the details about the planning and execution of the highly secretive and sensitive raid would be made public. That there are also reports that parts of the "known story" (couriers, etc.) were actually fabricated. In the end there are only a few people who know the truth, everyone else just gets fed whatever the bosses of those few people decide is "the truth". It gets repeated often enough and it becomes very hard to change peoples' minds about what "they know"
A similar situation relates to last week's democratic debate. During and right after the debate, people who watched it think Sanders won. However, all MSM came out the next day and say Clinton won. Polls afterward start leaning more towards a Clinton win, particularly from people who didn't watch the debate. The latest CNN poll of people who watched the debate now has Clinton winning 62/35, a huge change from the CNN on-line poll during/right after the debate which had Sanders winning 83/12. Just as with the Bin Laden "true story", people tend to believe what they hear repeated over and over again.
As a frequent NYT commenter located in Western Europe (it is 4:30 EST as I type this) I test the NYT moderators bias. Anti-Clinton posts most often get delayed hours. Pro-Clinton posts are generally approved faster. Coincidence?
A similar situation relates to last week's democratic debate. During and right after the debate, people who watched it think Sanders won. However, all MSM came out the next day and say Clinton won. Polls afterward start leaning more towards a Clinton win, particularly from people who didn't watch the debate. The latest CNN poll of people who watched the debate now has Clinton winning 62/35, a huge change from the CNN on-line poll during/right after the debate which had Sanders winning 83/12. Just as with the Bin Laden "true story", people tend to believe what they hear repeated over and over again.
As a frequent NYT commenter located in Western Europe (it is 4:30 EST as I type this) I test the NYT moderators bias. Anti-Clinton posts most often get delayed hours. Pro-Clinton posts are generally approved faster. Coincidence?
92
Well done - that is my impression as well - the NYT shows enormous bias on postings they don't like or contrary to their narrative even when considerable facts are included - especially with topics related to Russia.
3
Thanks for that last paragraph, jlalbrecht, and thanks for the NYTimes approving your post. A subtle Clinton tilt is exposed to sunlight? Of course when op-ed regulars Collins, Bruni, and Blow all opine within days that Clinton cleaned Sander's clock, that does tend to color any hoped for objectivity from the Grey Lady.
10
Yes, coincidence, this isn't Fox News, they aren't sitting around plotting to slant the news.
That being said, the shift in debate opinion was likely influenced by the talking heads who declared Clinton the winner, but it could also have been influenced by the fact that Sanders voters are more educated and computer savvy, and so more likely to vote in online polls.
A fairer analysis would have been that Clinton had a better debating technique, but that the educated and well-informed saw her as a dishonest triangulator. Perhaps there should be two ways of judging success in a debate -- whether one has swayed the credulous like Clinton, and whether one has prevailed on substance, integrity, and passion, as Sanders did.
That being said, the shift in debate opinion was likely influenced by the talking heads who declared Clinton the winner, but it could also have been influenced by the fact that Sanders voters are more educated and computer savvy, and so more likely to vote in online polls.
A fairer analysis would have been that Clinton had a better debating technique, but that the educated and well-informed saw her as a dishonest triangulator. Perhaps there should be two ways of judging success in a debate -- whether one has swayed the credulous like Clinton, and whether one has prevailed on substance, integrity, and passion, as Sanders did.
6
Hersh is far from an ideal reporter. His JFK assassination stories would have totally discredited another writer. It's not surprising that the News Yorker passed on his Osams story
6
One of the comments on Mahler's article finally answered a question I had from the beginning about the Bin Laden affair -- namely, why there were no pictures of Bin Laden's corpse, and why the corpse was disposed of instead of being put on display.
My immediate reaction to my question was that Bin Laden had not been killed, that the whole episode was invented by Obama. Adolf Hitler and Lyndon Johnson and many other politicians had done similar things.
The comment related what the commenter overheard when he returned a phone call about the raid on Bin Laden's house in Pakistan. Somebody who apparently participated in the raid said that they had to dispose of the body because it smelled so bad. This fit in with another item which said that Bin Laden had long been dead.
The absolute obviousness of the question -- why no pictures, why no viewing of the body -- and the total reluctance of the media to ask it suggests collusion by the mainstream media and the Obama administration. That is the opposite of what we need. Thank you, Mahler and Hersh, for asking questions like this.
To see other things that we need, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
My immediate reaction to my question was that Bin Laden had not been killed, that the whole episode was invented by Obama. Adolf Hitler and Lyndon Johnson and many other politicians had done similar things.
The comment related what the commenter overheard when he returned a phone call about the raid on Bin Laden's house in Pakistan. Somebody who apparently participated in the raid said that they had to dispose of the body because it smelled so bad. This fit in with another item which said that Bin Laden had long been dead.
The absolute obviousness of the question -- why no pictures, why no viewing of the body -- and the total reluctance of the media to ask it suggests collusion by the mainstream media and the Obama administration. That is the opposite of what we need. Thank you, Mahler and Hersh, for asking questions like this.
To see other things that we need, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
5
Let me guess, you don't believe that hijacked jetliners brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11 either. Did NASA fake the moon landing as well? Let us all don our tinfoil hats....
46
He makes a couple of good points. Spooks will try to make themselves look good, especially when they fail the ultimate test like the aforementioned 9-11. And bye the bye, it is aluminum foil, not tin foil.
6
But of course there are pictures of bin Laden's corpse. You just haven't seen them. Members of Congress have.
We are a civilized people, mostly We don't put bullet-ridden corpses on display for our aggrandizement.
Conspiracy theorists can't handle uncertainty. They latch onto meaningless things that support their conspiracy. Someone said the body smelled bad? Who? And why is that person's word more believable than anyone else's?
I know that I can't know everything and I'm OK with that. I see no upside to Obama and the media faking bin Laden's death, a situation that would surely be found out with so many people involved.
We are a civilized people, mostly We don't put bullet-ridden corpses on display for our aggrandizement.
Conspiracy theorists can't handle uncertainty. They latch onto meaningless things that support their conspiracy. Someone said the body smelled bad? Who? And why is that person's word more believable than anyone else's?
I know that I can't know everything and I'm OK with that. I see no upside to Obama and the media faking bin Laden's death, a situation that would surely be found out with so many people involved.
4
A new book from Amazon called Osama’s Angel tells of bin Laden’s capture and interrogation at Abbottabad. The fake sea burial and the media circus about who actually killed him are a smoke screen designed to distract everyone from the truth. The book tells why the Pakistani doctor was thrown to the wolves by the CIA. It also shows why an open trial of bin Laden was impossible after the CIA collusion with him during the Afghan-Soviet war and afterwards.
6
Evidence to support these claims? This alternative version, and that outlined by Mr. Benton, would seem to require more credulity than the official version. The more complex and convoluted the narrative, the less plausible it seems. It may be a long time before we know the key facts, but meanwhile I will prefer the simplest version that fits the facts we know. Bin Laden had to be buried at sea because he had been dead for a long time ? So the SEALS just picked up a corpse conveniently supplied by....whom? Really, this doesn't pass the smell test (pun intended).
2