Seymour Hersh, Obama, and the Bin Laden raid: liars liars pants on fire
My question is quite simple: who’s the bigger liar, Seymour Hersh or President Obama?
A lot of attention is being paid to Hersh’s piece in the London Review of Books that claims that “a single source says Obama lied about the raid, and that it was a joint US-Pakistani operation that was supposed to end in a drone strike.”
The problem is a single unnamed source does not a credible story make, especially when the source is speaking to and filtered through the mind of one Seymour Hersh (see this and this for previous posts of mine on Hersch and his veracity or lack thereof).
I distrust Hersh’s reporting so intensely that even if if reflects poorly on Obama, whom I also distrust intensely, I would be hard-pressed to figure out who’s lying and who is not. My guess is that probably both are lying, but it’s just a guess. So I see no need to waste a lot of time reading Hersh’s article, and I’ll rely on Ed Morrissey to digest it:
The ISI, according to Hersh’s one source, had pulled bin Laden out of the Hindu Kush in 2006 to bring him to Abbottabad, in part by bribing locals to rat him out. The US got confirmation about bin Laden’s location by basically doing the same thing, this time with military aid that went directly to the officers involved in this transaction in the form of protective gear. The problem, according to Hersh, is that the Saudis were spending a lot of money to keep bin Laden hidden because bin Laden was also a Saudi.
This is where the narrative starts to slip off the rails, though, and it brings up an important point. The first issue in any story written by Seymour Hersh is ”¦ Seymour Hersh. He has a habit of running with single-source stories that don’t pan out in the long run, and this tale has a number of red flags. This would be a big one. It’s certainly possible that some Saudi group would have coughed up cash to keep bin Laden out of harms’ way, but it wouldn’t have been the royal government. They were one of bin Laden’s targets, in part because of their alliance with the US, and especially the American military bases in Saudi Arabia.
How much is true, and how much is sheer fantasy? Hersh describes a coordination in the Pakistani military that seems too large in scope to have been a secret for four years, and only uncovered by Hersh’s single source…
That’s probably more than enough to get the idea. It’s common knowledge that Bin Laden and the Saudi government were enemies, for example, and it should be common knowledge that Seymour Hersh is an unreliable source himself.
And yet for some reason he is still being published by many media outlets. Why? Because he writes what they want to hear, and he sounds like a guy who’s really in the know. The famous Seymour Hersh! To me the most interesting question raised by Hersh’s article is: why is the left turning on Obama, at least to this small extent? Or is this just Hersh and the London Review of Books trying to make a sensation and draw readers?
1.) Assuming the story is true (which I doubt), it’s hardly shocking that we would have covered up the source of the intel, whether we got it from tracking a courier, the Paks themselves, or the Cigarette Smoking Man
2.) If they wanted it to look like OBL had been killed by a drone, the simplest way to do so was to kill him with a drone, and in any case, there were going to be eyewitnesses to the raid, since it was happening in beautiful downtown Abbotabad.
3.) Hersh accuses Obama of exaggerating the threat that AQ posed at the time of the raid. In fact, there was a score to settle, even if every single member of AQ other than Bin Laden was screaming in hell.
4.) If the Paks wanted Bin Laden dead, they could have arranged it themselves, and not have had an American drone strike or Special Ops raid to explain.
5.) Try shaving with Occam’s Razor. If we launched a special ops mission into Pakistan to kill a guy, it’s probably because we wanted the guy dead, and never expected them to cooperate.
This man has lost his mind.
I understand that, in the world of the web, it’s called “clickbait”.
Both Hersh and those publishing him needed the equivalent of clicks.
I can’t believe that an outfit as ubiquitous as the ISI didn’t know OBL was just down the road. OTOH, I can believe that the CIA or US technology spoofed Pak IADS just long enough.
So, yeah, ISI knew he was there but they didn’t know we knew.
CYAing it, they pretended to be annoyed.
And if I were duty officer at the Abbotabad Academy for Boys just down the road and heard unfamliar choppers overhead at zerodarkthirty, it might occur to me that the officer I woke with the news might want ME to lead the reaction force.
Plenty of room for any explanation you want. We accuse Obama of lying because of Occam’s Razor. Or, no. Because of probability.
Oh, come on, Neo: Every now and then can’t we also share in some “too good to check!” fun?
Still, Mr. Hersh’s story hinted at a very satisfying (to me) “narrative”, so I naturally liked it. It could also be part of Larger Truth; to wit, that president Obama lies even when he doesn’t need to. [Isn’t there a scientific name for that behavior?]
To me the most interesting question raised by Hersh’s article is: why is the left turning on Obama, at least to this small extent?
Possibly because Obama (and the democrats by extension) record is so bad that the only way to run, if you are a democrat, or leftist (but I repeat myself), is to run against heir record.
This would be a ‘safe’ takedown. Allowing some to attack this administration’s credibility, but not necessarily disavowing their policies.
Seymour Hersh has to destroy the truth to save it.
They are prepping the echo chamber for HRC.
As a military op — it was entirely outside the purview of the SoS.
If I were HRC, I would’ve paid Hersh to run it.
&&&
As for KSA, that crazy, insane, land is bifurcated.
This split is entirely lost on outsiders — as the royals present a united face to the infidels in every manner possible.
So it would no way surprise me to find out that Islamabad was getting grift from Riyahd (FACTION B) — Golden Chain monies even as the other half of Dr Jekyll played ‘good Arab.’
And lest we forget: Pakistan is entirely split, too, largely on Punjabi and Shindh lines. (Famously, Pervez Musharraf, the dictator, was a Shindh by blood and raised, culturally, as a Punjabi — making him the Pakistani version of King Henry the VIII ( ie York + Lancaster fustion))
And ISI is entirely split: you have a section entirely devoted to the American angle — and snowing them — and yet an opposing section entirely devoted to the Taliban — and snowing THEM. (Section T vs Section S — And, yes, I’m not making this up.)
Perfect symmetry, no?
As for keeping secrets for years… that’s easily done in a culture that’s swimming, nay drowning, in lies.
In all such centralized dictatorships, the real high cards are closely held… really closely held.
There is no way in Hell that OBL’s abode was widely known within the ISI. It had a bodyguard of lies to beat all.
Anything less and the Americans would get wise. (Or the Mossad — or RAW (India) or the KGB or the Red Chinese — would sell Islamabad out — tout de suite.)
&&&&&&
For those who wonder why ANY Faction B royals would want to sustain OBL…
It’s an old custom in Araby to penetrate and manipulate the enemy — with lies, even monies. OBL’s franchise would be a terrific Sith asset able to assassinate Faction A royals — while drawing all ire and stain away from the Sith Lord.
Read the Hadiths.
Yes, such gambits are straight from Mo’ — the perv.
If ONLY the CIA had kept this in mind then the detonation of our CIA cadre in Afghanistan could’ve been prevented.
&&&&
Anyone trying to pursue a rabbit needs have Alice on his arm.
Muslims have one heck of a root system.
You’ll be exhausted just holding your place.
We’re in bad trouble when the most reliable reporters of fact are the Pakistani military.
Hersh is so untrustworthy that I wouldn’t read him in order to fisk him.
Given reports prior it was rumored that people knew where OBL was, and that due to this, he was pretty much locked down and mostly ineffective.
Obama made the beginners mistake at war and fighting and its difference from modern face to face warfare. there are two basic theories with the second one winning out the more modern you go. the first was done in during WWI and the meat grinder, where the idea was that if you eliminated your enemy, there would be no one left to make opposition, and you won. for various reasons, this was strategically replaced more with the idea of maiming and injuring, mostly because an injured survivor is a big drain on the resources of your opposition. they require other people, they still eat food, and sometimes more, they take up more space, on and on.
This was the point of Not going after OBL because ultimately, there was nothing to be gained, and at great expense. what ended up gained was minute and fleeting at best.. and not the ticker tape parade outcome that might be desired, even more so given they misread their own ideas of the not leftists that they would want to see some grand move and favor them.
usually people try to fit their arguments to what they feel is best, not lay out the points and work out which is best… this often leads to a big disconnect between actions, outcomes, and fulfillment.
there were not many options to work out, and those making choices had the information as to what his state was and what he could or could not do.
OBL knows what can happen and he reacted faster than Pablo Escobar did. from the start to the end, he had to keep dialing back his communications more and more. He could no longer effectively lead because if he tried, he would put out enough signal to be traced, and get killed. even worse, if he was being monitored and not just boxed in, what he did communicate was under a censor that would choose whether it was enough to bother to shut him up.
he is alive, requires food, medicine, entertainment of some sort, even if its books.. he lives in a location and he has costs, and whom watches over him has to expend resources… so he was neutered, no chance of martyrdom of any kind, and was draining the resources of his friends keeping him, and putting them in negative barganing positions.
capture him, and now you have the three ring circus, the people who want to come rescue him or hurt some so he gets let go, the martyr quotient goes up, and all the costs are now ours, not someone elses, and with the way the USA does things, it would be very very very expensive…
kill him, you save the bill on care and all that, martyr isnt too high, but the other side no longer has to worry about the connection any more they are now free to act and free to plan without restriction of their leaders restriction. the momentary benefit would fade the minute the news cycle changed, and then the vultures would pick at it… the end of WWII was forgotten and they picked at the nuclear carcass to the point where people consider continuing the war and having to mow down women and children who refused to give up and having to collect the masses of suicides all over, and especially women (as happened on the islands that were lost to the west)
it was the poorest of choices because it free up opposition, and it was fleeting in payoff at best… even worse is if there were deals and other things needed to be given to get to it…
there is little truth here, as there is too much gain in gaming things for various sides, and in this case, with Obama, none of the sides thinks the truth, morals, ethics, etc are of any value.
Meanwhile, once the revolution didnt happen, its becoming more and more open field day on obama, business as usual as before, and the vultures and parasites are coming out, for when you hold them back, they eventually come all at once.. as they never disappeared, they just all waited for the opportunity…
Art…
The maladministration has SAT on vast intel secured during the SEAL operation.
You would simply not believe the volumes still sitting on the shelf — not yet released for …
For what?
Political reasons?
The ayatollah simply boxed them up — rather like the final scene from Raiders of the Lost Arc — and put them in a politically safe place.
NO WAY does the ayatollah want any dirt blowing up on the AQ to Tehran connection — which is thick as thieves.
The news company doesn’t care if the allegations are false. That’s just more story to sell when it inevitably comes to light. it’s kind of a bonus, because the allegations against Obama will be proven false. They’ll come full-circle on the merry-go-round and pocket the difference.
Seymour Hersh: the Alex Jones of the Left.
The Lefties are just having a handbag fight with President Boyfriend. They’ll kiss and make up after the trade regulation passes. The one that takes Congress out of the trade agreement picture. Which the Wall St. Journal jackasses approve.
Oooh, Beverly! I love it! “The Alex Jones of the Left” PERFECTLY sums him up!
(Me, whenever I Seymour Hersch’s name cross up, have a bad tendency to hear Bart Simpson’s voice in my head, calling Moe’s Tavern and asking to speak to Seymour, last name, Butz.)
“I distrust Hersh’s reporting so intensely that even if if reflects poorly on Obama, whom I also distrust intensely, I would be hard-pressed to figure out who’s lying and who is not.”
Ditto. I don’t trust anything Hersh says about anyone, left or right. I’m not sure why anyone on either side gives him the time of day. He pops up every year or two with a “sensational” story that has no corroboration and that after about a week no one even remembers. His scoops are scoops of you know what.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pakistanis-knew-where-bin-laden-was-say-us-sources-n357306
As I feared, the loopy Hersh story has legs — and makes more
sense than the maladministration’s tale.
{
The original version of this story said that a Pakistani asset told the U.S. where bin Laden was hiding. Sources say that while the asset provided information vital to the hunt for bin Laden, he was not the source of his whereabouts.
Intelligence sources tell NBC News that in the year before the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden, a retired Pakistani military intelligence officer helped the CIA track him down.
While the Pakistani intelligence asset provided vital information in the hunt for bin Laden, he did not provide the location of the al Qaeda leader’s Abottabad, Pakistan compound, sources said.
Three sources also said that some officials in the Pakistani government knew where bin Laden was hiding all along.
}
In all escapades of such a nature, a body guard of lies is established.
I don’t expect that Hersh’s tale will fully hold up….
But the bit about a ‘walk-in’ intel source and the ISI knowing all along — even Occam could shave with them.
&&&&&&
The REAL story is that the Musharraf crew was working a protection racket on both Bush and Barry.
If you’ll recall, the essence of any mob protection racket is that if you pay off, then bad things don’t happen.
If you fail to come through with your jizya to Islamabad, then Muslim things happen to America.
ONE of the reasons for the ayatollah’s wind-back of the Afghan campaign is to terminate the payola to the Punjabi clique in Islamabad.
( Benazir Bhutto was a Sindh )(1953-2007)
It’s entirely reasonable to expect Islamabad to become fulsomely insolvent at any time.
They just kicked their number one patron in the teeth: Islamabad flatly turned down Riyadh inre their Yemen project.
That vote triggered a crisis in Riyadh that our obscurantist MSM and maladministration can’t apprehend.
Kaos is defeating Control…