Is the New Yorker’s account of the Bin Laden raid accurate?
History will tell us – maybe, someday. Maybe not.
But fact, trail-obscuring fiction, or somewhere in between, it’s a gripping read.
(Does it seem likely to you that a SEAL – one of the “quiet professionals” – would say what the article says he did, the title of this post, on shooting Bin Laden? It seems just south of plausible – but you wanna think so, anyway…)
Wish I could believe The New Yorker had turned over a new leaf, but I smell a rat. I enjoyed reading the piece even though it didn’t contain much new information. Noteworthy were the oblique references to how President Obama put the CIA bloodhounds on the trail after all those inept years of Bush leadership. Right. The New Yorker published a number of stridently anti-military pieces during the Vietnam War and I don’t think its editorial philosophy has changed, except to glorify their man in the White House. Can you imagine the reaction if a commando force had assassinated a major leftist leader? Wait—it already happened: Che Guervara is in the pantheon of heroes worshipped by our lefty friends. They made an award winning movie about him. He was good, kind and loved puppies. Murdered thousands of political prisoners? WTF?
golfdoc50;
Yea, I smell a skunk in the hen house, too! It’s funny how the left wingnuts continually ignored history. If one reads up on the rise of the Third Reich, they would see that the DemonRAT party is following Hitler’s script almost to the letter. His regime even subsidized such mundane things as vacations for citizens, yet it was effective – the world saw what happened!