One of the problems with debating politics online is that there is a strong tendency – and since I do this myself, I am certain that others must, too – to just read the headline and jump right in.
After all, the headline lets us know the topic, and generally it’s something I’ve already formed an opinion on. Also, if we stopped to read every single article, we’d never get any commenting done, and where’s the fun in that?
So, the headlines today are all screaming “Seymour Hersh Says Obama Lied About Bin Laden Raid.”
Well, that’s certainly not the first time anyone’s made that claim, and I do respect Seymour Hersh. Also, in the immediate aftermath of the raid, when they said they’d “buried the body at sea,” (i.e. threw his carcass overboard) my bullshit detector went off loud and clear.
However, this is Obama, not Bush. There are a few things he’s been secretive about, like the Pacific Trade Deal, and some things that didn’t exactly work out like he said they would, but compared to the previous regime, he’s been George fucking Washington. Also, how would that work? If Osama Bin Laden were still alive, it would be a pretty neat trick to make everybody think you killed him. All it would take would be one video to make you look like a total doofus.
So, when somebody posted it on facebook I shot back with “Where is he then?” If he were still alive, he’d have been spotted by now, probably in a 7-11, hanging out with Elvis.
Later, I went and read the article. Hersh is saying that Obama co-operated with the Pakistani government to pull off the raid, Barry says it ain’t so.
I reckon that’s a rather minor detail. If you are a Pakistani who supported Bin Laden, it would probably piss you off, but the average American voter probably wouldn’t object if the locals got a heads up before the raid. Tempest in a tea pot.
I suppose I should blame myself for not reading the article first, but blaming myself is not something I like to do, so I’ll say the headline writers could have made that a bit clearer. Stupid headline writers.