An excellent question.
His inspiration to ask the question arises from the Administration’s continually shifting narrative concerning the mission to kill Osama bin Laden.
The USA had a big win with the elimination of Osama in his “man-cave” in
Pakistan. For once in his two-plus miserable years as President, Obama
looked almost presidential; he, for once, had made a tough decision
well. The political risk to Obama in ordering a helicopter assault on
Osama’s gilded cage in Abbottabad should not be minimized. Visions of
“Blackhawk Down,”and “Desert One” must have been vivid in his mind. The
decision to make it a “man-on-man” hit was the right one, and Obama,
apparently, rightly rejected the B-2 with PGMs option. He, rightly it
seems, argued against that, noting that such a strike would always leave
room for doubt as to whether we had nailed Osama. We needed U.S. eyes,
hands, and bullets on the creep. That’s what we got in a brilliantly
executed SEAL operation.
Indeed. While I was less than thrilled to learn that The 0ne required a 16 hour overnight contemplation prior to deciding to act, at least he had decided before the window of opportunity closed.
Almost all that is now being squandered by a most amazingly
disorganized, inept, and idiotic official handling of the aftermath to
the raid. First, Obama’s statement announcing the event was way too
long, and all about Obama. It sounded like what it was: a 2012 campaign
video clip. Worse, however, has been the death by a thousand cuts of the
narrative of the raid. It seems that about dozen different senior
administration officials have been talking to the press, giving about a
dozen different versions of the details. Why is that allowed? Is there
no discipline? Is there no agreed upon script? Osama hid behind his
wife, except when he didn’t. Osama resisted with a firearm, except that
he didn’t have one. Pakistan cooperated fully, except when it didn’t.
The rushed burial at sea, why? We didn’t do that with the Saddam boys,
and there was no Muslim rebellion. Is there or is there not an
agreement to release the photos? We put the pictures out on the Saddam
kinder–oh, and, of course, the photos from Abu Gharib, those were no
problem. And on and on . . . If you don’t have a unified script, “SHUT
This is just silly. Armed, not armed, etc., etc., ad naseum. You are all supposedly professionals. Try acting like it.
And release the pictures and the video. They belong to the People, and I severely doubt there is anything on them which would endager national security.
And finally, in answer to Diplomad’s question, apparently not.
Finding and killing him were very hard. Post mission messaging should have been the easy part. The CIA and Armed Forces performed as expected (very well indeed), and so has the Office of the President (very poorly indeed).
Update: 0bama has now announced (as part of his Sixty Minutes Interview) that he won’t be releasing the post mortem photographs after all. Frackwit.