"The U.S. special forces team that hunted down Osama bin Laden was under orders to kill the al Qaeda mastermind, not capture him, a U.S. national security official told Reuters." This is an obvious lie and for obvious reason. I am certain that the orders were to capture him alive: his capture alive would have been far more humiliating for him, just as the capture of Saddam. I hate those propaganda spins after the fact.I don't think it would have occurred to me that an overriding goal of hunting down Bin Laden was to humiliate him. I suppose it was more humiliating for Saddam Hussein to be a prisoner at the end, but in many ways a captive Bin Laden would have been quite awkward, especially for a president who just wanted to show that progressives always get their man. Imagine the dreary debate about what sort of trial to give Bin Laden. And yet AA is so convinced that humiliation was the aim, and that the immediate goal therefore was capture, that anyone who says otherwise must be a liar. Did he feel humiliated himself by Saddam's end?
Monday, May 02, 2011
Angry Arab and Bin Laden's death as Rorschach Blot
I expect that the death of Bin Laden will prove to be a Rorschach Blot for a number of people, but get a load of this moment of self-revelation. The post is entitled "This is a Lie":