They Keep "Updating" the Story
So I have questions. I don't attend press briefings, so any of you who do can ask them:
1. What's the genesis of the first version? The one that had four helicopters instead of the two they are now claiming. The one with the "human shield" that was or wasn't "his wife" (lots of those, remember).
2. The Paks: I said earlier that I didn't believe the Paks weren't informed, and I rather suspect that they're in cahoots. We may be covering for them, not for the first time. I asked a journalist friend "what happened to the other twenty-plus people in the villa?" He said "they are being interrogated by the Pakistanis."
How can that be when the Paks didn't know eff-all until the whole thing was finished? Did we tie them up and then call the ISI? And if the "relationship" is now in shambles, why are the Paks apparently cooperating with our desire for maximum info? Why would anyone believe what they tell us?
3. Intelligence: Osama's greatest value to us was as a source of information. We now know he wasn't armed, wasn't shooting. OK, he was "resisting." Don't tell me the Navy SEALS don't know how to handle that one. They could have knocked him out and taken him away. Why didn't they? Followup questions: so was it a "kill" mission all along? If so, why?
More: Did the failed helicopter remove the space necessary for one more body? Seems unlikely. but I am not a logistics officer (note to self: ask the boys. they're both logistics officers).
4. It's a tangled web. Is there a desire to deceive? If so, why? If not, how did it get so screwed up?
Yes, I know that screwing up defines mankind. I'm fine with that explanation. I'm not suggesting a disinformation campaign. I'm just offering some useful lines of inquiry.
It's a big story, after all. We need to get it right. Although how will we know the truth if we see it?