http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...g-tr_b_7488920.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Do you believe Seymour Hersh? Do you believe Obama?
Do you believe Seymour Hersh? Do you believe Obama?
Obama's "Official Versions" in Syria and Pakistan Are False?
- Thread starter SDBoiler1
- Start date
Hersh has said a lot of things over the years. I have no idea how much of what he says is true, and how much isn't. Whether he's talking about Bush, Cheney and Iraq or Obama and Syria, or his claim that JFK was a bigamist drug user.
He's made enough suspicious claims over the years thought that I'd probably want a second opinion first.
Many of the things Hersh claims about Syria and Pakistan make more sense than the Obama administration's versions do, at least to me.
Of course they do to you.
Did you feel the same about his claims about Bush and Cheney?
Do you think JFK was a bigamist and drug addict?
Or did those make "less sense?"
His claims about Syria and Pakistan make a lot of sense to many people besides me, and they're not all Republicans, either.
Honestly, I have not seen his claims about Bush and Cheney or JFK. Therefore, it's hard for me to comment on them.
Be honest, Hersh being negative fits your preconceived notion...just like his being negative about Bush and Cheney would fit mine.
Having said that, because he has a long history of going after multiple administrations going all the way back to JFK, and because he has an equally long history of saying stuff that wasn't supported, based on unsourced information, or just plain crazy (JFK was a bigamist and drug addict), then even though it "feels" right what he says about Bush/Cheney, there's no way I'm going to believe just his reporting on that alone.
First off, this guy aside, I'm sure the public versions of very high-profile national security types of issues are not entirely true - or the complete story is being told.
That being said, two things.
1. This is not really a political issue. With national security issues, it's not necessarily admins that really get to frame the story. A lot of what is or is not mentioned is done at the request of national security agencies, which some of Obama's more political type of people probably don't even have clearance to know. Also, many of these things are clearly meant to be protective of things that are not "American" politics. For example, bin Laden being shot with multiple rounds vs. a couple shots - that doesn't really matter to most Americans, Americans wanted him dead, they don't care how. And let's be honest, the U.S. did not really want to have him alive as that would have been problematic on many different levels. Again, Americans don't really care about that, but obviously there are communities around the world that it would matter to.
2. The stories told more in "real time" over history is not necessarily all accurate. The U.S. has always had a propaganda machine to make what its doing sound more noble and good than not. And especially in these days when news is more real-time than ever. How often is initial reporting wrong to some degree? Pretty often.
Pakistan's pissed we did it without consulting them. There's a good reason we did that. While I'm sure some of the details are lost in the fog of war, the version you've seen in the movies is pretty accurate.
Signed,
Guy stationed on the ship that buried him
The claim is that they knew all along and that they are pissed that we took clear credit for it.
As for Afghanistan-
I do think the USA carried out the attack without the Govt of Pakistan knowing what the US had planned. I also think that with the use of enhanced interogation methods the CIA stumbled upon information about bin ladens carrier.
I also think that Pakistan, or at least senior officials in Govt, military, and intelligence knew where bin Laden was. Many people in those organizations have loyalties to Al Qaeda and other radical groups. I also find it plausible that someone in one of those groups approached the USA about information about bin Laden in order to collect the $25 million.
As for Syria-
There is supposedly evidence both sides used chemical weapons. I believe they both did. Why? Assad wants to hold on to power. ISIS and rebels? Look at them-they are barbaric and will do about anything to control an area or assert their beliefs. Warehouses and areas that housed these weapons have been lost and gained back by both sides throughout the war. So I believe "both" sides have had or still have access to them. And after Obama's infamous red line speech in regard to chemical weapons, there are a whole slew of factions that would have wanted Syria to look guilty for using them.
"Both" is in parentheses because that Syrian Civil War has more than just two sides fighting. But that is different topic.
I do think the USA carried out the attack without the Govt of Pakistan knowing what the US had planned. I also think that with the use of enhanced interogation methods the CIA stumbled upon information about bin ladens carrier.
I also think that Pakistan, or at least senior officials in Govt, military, and intelligence knew where bin Laden was. Many people in those organizations have loyalties to Al Qaeda and other radical groups. I also find it plausible that someone in one of those groups approached the USA about information about bin Laden in order to collect the $25 million.
As for Syria-
There is supposedly evidence both sides used chemical weapons. I believe they both did. Why? Assad wants to hold on to power. ISIS and rebels? Look at them-they are barbaric and will do about anything to control an area or assert their beliefs. Warehouses and areas that housed these weapons have been lost and gained back by both sides throughout the war. So I believe "both" sides have had or still have access to them. And after Obama's infamous red line speech in regard to chemical weapons, there are a whole slew of factions that would have wanted Syria to look guilty for using them.
"Both" is in parentheses because that Syrian Civil War has more than just two sides fighting. But that is different topic.
