Do you think President Obama and his Administration have been handling the aftermath of the raid to get Osama bin Laden well? Have they been forthcoming and honest in their reports of what happened during and after the raid?

ETWolverine 2011/05/09 15:35:28
Add Photos & Videos

In the aftermath of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, there has been some question as to whether the Obama Administration has been open and honest with the American public about what happened during and after the raid. The following article by Michelle Malkin summarizes some of the changing statements that we have received from the White House about the raid.

The Fog of Fog
May 6, 2011

The official White House ac count of Osama bin Laden's demise has seen more slap dash cosmetic surgery over the last week than your average "Real Housewives" star. President Obama's allies attribute the bungled "narrative" to the "Fog of War." But each revision shows that what really ails the administration is the Fog of Fog.

Errors happen. But the hourly revamping of key details of Sunday's raid suggests something far beyond the usual uncertainty that accompanies any military operation.

The Navy SEALs did their job spectacularly. The civilians tasked with letting the world know about the mission, however, have performed like amateur dinner-theater actors in a tragi-comic production of "Rashomon."

Let's review.

Take 1: Bin Laden died in a bloody firefight.

On Sunday night, Obama dramatically told the world that "after a firefight," our brave men in uniform "killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."

Embellishing the story the next morning, White House deputy national security adviser John Brennan said at his briefing that bin Laden "was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in . . . And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don't know . . . It was a firefight. He, therefore, was killed in that firefight."

Take 2: Bin Laden did not engage in a firefight.

The day after Brennan disclosed such vivid details, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney walked them back. Bin Laden, he said in version 2.0, "was not armed." Brennan had clearly implied that bin Laden "resisted" with arms. Carney insisted that "resistance does not require a firearm." How exactly bin Laden resisted, Carney wouldn't say.

It's been K-turns and 180s ever since. Fasten your seatbelts:

Take 3: Bin Laden's wife died after her feckless husband used her as a human shield.

Take 4: Bin Laden's wife did not die, wasn't used as a human shield and was only shot in the leg. Someone else's wife was killed, somewhere else in the house.

Take 5: A transport helicopter experienced "mechanical failure" and was forced to make a hard landing during the mission.

Take 6: A top-secret helicopter clipped the bin Laden compound wall, crashed and was purposely exploded after the mission to prevent our enemies from learning more about it.

Take 7: The bin Laden photos would be released to the world as proof of his death.

Take 8: The bin Laden photos would not be released to the world because no one needs proof and it's more important to avoid offending peaceful Muslims who supposedly don't embrace bin Laden as a "true" Muslim in the first place.

Take 9: Bin Laden's compound was a lavish mansion.

Take 10: Bin Laden's compound was a glorified pigsty.

Take 11: Bin Laden's compound had no TV, phone or computer access.

Take 12: Bin Laden's compound was stocked with hard drives, thumb drives, DVDs and computers galore.

Take 13: Er, remember that statement about bin Laden being armed? Then not armed? Well, the new version is that he had an AK-47 "nearby."

Take 14: A gung-ho Obama spearheaded the "gutsy" mission.

Take 15: A reluctant Obama dithered for 16 hours before being persuaded by CIA Director Leon Panetta.

Take 16: Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and close advisers watched the raid unfold in real time -- "minute by minute," according to Carney -- and a gripping insider photo was posted immediately by the White House.

Take 17: Er, they weren't really watching real-time video "minute by minute" because there was at least nearly a half-hour that they "didn't know just exactly what was going on," Panetta clarified.

Take 18: Stalwart Obama's order was to kill, not capture, bin Laden.

Take 19: Sensitive Obama's order was to kill or capture -- and that's why the SEAL team gave him a chance to surrender, upon which he resisted with arms, or actually didn't resist with arms, but sort of resisted without arms, except there was an AK-47 nearby, sort of, or maybe not.

So, while Decisive Obama did tell the SEALs to kill bin Laden and should claim all credit for doing so, Progressive Obama can also be absolved by bleeding hearts because of the painstakingly concocted post facto possibility that bin Laden somehow threatened our military -- telepathically or something -- before being taken out.

Take 20: "We've been as forthcoming with facts as we can be," said an irritated Carney on Wednesday.

And they wonder why Americans of all political stripes think they're blowing smoke.

So what do you think. Has the Obama Administration been straight with us, or not?

Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • No, President Obama has been handling the aftermath of the raid poorly and ha...
    STEELANGEL 凸 Metal Up 凸
    No, The assault Obama authorised was not legal. He was responsible for the killing of an unarmed man. Point blank Murder by an Unconstitutional Leftist Administration. buisness as usual murderers!
  • ETWolve... STEELAN... 2011/05/12 14:42:05
    I don't agree.

    Osama bin Laden, like any other general, is a legitimate military target during time of war. The September 17, 2001 Authorization to Use Force Against Terrorists, signed by Congress, declared war against Al Qaeda and any other terrorist groups as required under the Constitution. Therefore, the raid against Osama was a legitimate action of war against a legitimate millitary target during a legal war.

    I do agree that Obama is a leftist and quite a bit of what he does is unconstitutional. But his actions against OBL were legitimate.
  • STEELAN... ETWolve... 2011/05/12 15:57:07
    STEELANGEL 凸 Metal Up 凸
    Convince HiM of that!
    “We hold the American President (Barack) Obama legally responsible to clarify the fate of our father, Osama bin Laden, for it is unacceptable, humanely and religiously, to dispose of a person with such importance and status among his people, by throwing his body into the sea in that way, which demeans and humiliates his family and his supporters and which challenges religious provisions and feelings of hundreds of millions of Muslims.”
    Read more at Huffingtonpost.com
  • ETWolve... STEELAN... 2011/05/12 16:06:48
    Convince who? Bin Laden's son?

    Why do I care what he thinks?

    Tell me, did the bin Laden family worry about the unacceptability, inhumanity, religious prohibitions, and moral and ethical issues of murdering 3,000 people on 9-11?

    Despite what Omar bin Laden might like us to believe, the killing of OBL was perfectly legal, moral and ethical. In fact, if it had NOT been done, I would argue that Barack Obama would have been in violation of his oath of Presidency and of the Constitutional requirement of the President and the government to protect the nation and the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic.
  • schjaz 2011/05/10 14:35:25
    I don't know whether President Obama has been open and honest with the public...
    I don't believe one thing this guy says...but I don't think we should know everything due to National Security. That being said, I think the administration has illustrated fully, once again, how they do not have their s&(* together because they are unable to get the story straight.
  • ETWolve... schjaz 2011/05/10 14:58:02 (edited)
    I tend to agree with you.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/13 00:34:49

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals