Any delay would have been minimal, and the intelligence rendered useless within hours of the attack, long before any of it could be made of use.
I don't really believe any of the stories, and I don't believe the general public will ever know the true story anyway. We never really knew Osama Bin Laden. We knew him through what our government told us about him - the tapes, the historical record, his family's prestige, etc. And now because he was killed, we won't get to go through the proceeding where the public gets to meet the so-called monster.
For all we know this guy was just an actor, a boogey man, to fuel a campaign. Please keep in mind, I don't actually believe that either, I'm just saying... this war is very important to some people and the way Bin Laden died and the story came out, it was all so neat and tidy.
We will never know what really happened.
I may be wrong.
Such simple, easily checked facts being portrayed in error do raise serious credibility concerns about the author. If he can't get simple, public record information correct, then it is absolutely absurd to trust the "top secret" info he is presenting.
If the article is accurate about the public record inaccuracies in the book, the author has 0 credibility.
Last edited by DrunkenAsparagus; 11-15-11 at 01:38 PM.
Spec ops command: SEAL raid book ‘a lie’ - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times
Is this going to descend into a he-said, she-said kinda deal?WASHINGTON — The U.S. Special Operations Command is calling a former Navy SEAL’s book bogus over its claims to describe the “real” version of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
“It’s just not true,” U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman Col. Tim Nye said. “It’s not how it happened.”
Packed with conspiracy theories and attacks on the Obama White House, Chuck Pfarrer’s “SEAL Target Geronimo” claims an alternative version of the raid in which the SEAL team shot bin Laden within 90 seconds of arriving at the Pakistan compound where the al-Qaida mastermind was holed up.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.