Glenn Greenwald: In Bin Laden Killing, Media - As Usual - Regurgitates False Government Claims

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/03/propaganda_bin_laden/index.html

TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011 11:04 ET
In bin Laden killing, media -- as usual -- regurgitates false Government claims
BY GLENN GREENWALD

Virtually every major newspaper account of the killing of Osama bin Laden consists of faithful copying of White House claims. That's not surprising: it's the White House which is in exclusive possession of the facts, but what's also not surprising is that many of the claims that were disseminated yesterday turned out to be utterly false. And no matter how many times this happens -- from Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight against Iraqi captors to Pat Tillman's death at the hands of Evil Al Qaeda fighters -- it never changes: the narrative is set forever by first-day government falsehoods uncritically amplified by establishment media outlets, which endure no matter how definitively they are disproven in subsequent days.

Yesterday, it was widely reported that bin Laden "resisted" his capture and "engaged in a firefight" with U.S. forces (leaving most people, including me, to say that his killing was legally justified because he was using force). It was also repeatedly claimed that bin Laden used a women -- his wife -- has a human shield to protect himself, and that she was killed as a result. That image -- of a cowardly through violent-to-the-end bin Laden -- framed virtually every media narrative of the event all over the globe. And it came from many government officials, principally Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan.

- snip -

It was a fitting end for the America's most wanted man. As President Barack Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan told it, a cowardly Osama bin Laden used his own wife as a human shield in his final moments. Except that apparently wasn't what happened at all.

- snip -

Politico's Josh Gerstein adds: "The White House backed away Monday evening from key details in its narrative about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, including claims by senior U.S. officials that the Al Qaeda leader had a weapon and may have fired it during a gun battle with U.S. forces." Gerstein added: "a senior White House official said bin Laden was not armed when he was killed."

MORE

that's an indication that those in the compound were resisting.

AFAIK, that has not been disputed.

People like Brennan know the facts. So why do they tell a different story? Why do they create a tale that is utterly false from the facts? We've seen it with Tillman and Lynch. Now with this operation. Why?

two dozen different stories about what happened.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If so, was Obama and his staff watching 24 different live feeds at the same time?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong. I'm saying this is the reality of such situations.

The theme that OBL was "hiding behind a woman" was meant to humiliate him in the eyes of the world - to say that he was not a great leader, not worthy of esteem - esp. in patriarchal mindsets.

The tale is not utterly false - the details are.

Why not?

Just to be clear, it is legal to kill someone accused of a crime, and it doesn't matter whether they were resisting or not!

I'm sure that law enforcement will like that concept.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

the "President of the United States can Kill Anyone Anywhere Anytime He Wants to" law.

Makes you proud to be an American doesn't it?

So far I have not heard one member of Congress object to bin Laden's killing.

makes you proud to be an American.

a situation that is absolutely fatal for democracy.

as well. If there is a WH official who is setting the record straight - then good for them; but all the other gabbers should STFU until they know what is going on. It is typical human nature to talk about stuff they think they know but do not.

If there is someone setting the record straight, then I do not think the non-facts are deliberate - otherwise everyone would be saying the same thing.

Good job missing the point.

Do you personally charge the government with shutting the pieholes of those disseminating horseshit? For crissakes the Deather theory that the mission was a hoax hit this place first.

No. Who said I or Greenwald did? Where? Gov't should get their facts right and media should be skeptical. Basic. Nothing new. Yet again and again, more Jessica Lynch shit.

Deather theory: Because some people come up with absurd ideas on a discussion board, that justifies the gov't and media making stuff up instead of doing their job correctly?

lol

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If he was actually responsible, why was there no immediate claim of credit for it?

When the embassies were bombed, there was a video released immediately, claiming credit and giving the reasons for it.

When the Cole was bomb, bin Laden claimed credit for it as part of his on-going war.

After 9/11, bin Laden was silent for days, then came out with a tape saying pretty much "I admire the guys who did this, I wish I'd thought of it." The tone of it was completely different and it very explicitly did NOT say "I did it."

Why was that, do you think?

And the point is, nevermind

;)

:evilgrin:

here:

Here is the source for all the articles where one can see the reports which keep changing from the various media sources.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/bin_laden_wire/bi...

A definitive narrative of the strike hasn't been released yet since the soldiers probably are still being debriefed and everyone in the White House is just starting to calm down. But, of course, facts like those don't prevent Greenwald from climbing the highest peak on Mount Sanctimony and making a fool of himself. Like a birther, he's just fueled by irrational anger.

And he is a liberal, not a corporate, war-mongering democrat.

Any valid points Greenwald had to make got drowned long ago in an endless torrent of sanctimony.

He is a Libertarian on most issues, and only a liberal in the classical sense on the social issues that directly affect him.


Other issues, such as immigration, he is downright Neanderthal.

You need to read up a bit on just what Greenwald is, exactly.

Because he is not a libertarian.

On the immigration issue, he addressed that here:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/a2av5p

"That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I've discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time - due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I've written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I'm 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country - not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and - like so many things I thought were true then - has nothing to do with what I believe now.

That's why Obama cultists have to dig back 6 years into my archives to try to find things to discredit me. "

forthcoming as soon as the soldiers are debriefed.

conference. He specifically declined to say how the woman ended up being a human shield, and he never said bin Laden had shot at the troops. It was patently obvious just from watching him that things were still chaotic and he didn't have a complete narrative. If some media outlets decided to misrepresent what he said, that's a different problem.

Greenwald is just a left-wing birther -- he sublimates his raw anger into sanctimonious "outrage" over manufactured issues like this one.

Okay... :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It helps define them.

They are not the same.

:spray:



:yourock:

:thumbsup:

Let's hope the mods will remove this crap to the 911 dungeon as they have done with so many others.

Leave it here so it can be discussed. Our side has as many demons to be exorcised as theirs. Or maybe we're all on the same side??????

This is weird Orly Taitz shit, and I would expect no less from GG and his fan base. I mean, at some point, Skinner has to make the decision if he wants this to become Alex Jones Underground, and a laughingstock.

There is nothing conspiracy theory here. It's about the White House and the media doing a shitty job.

Is that all you got? Defend Obama at ALL costs is what is embarrassing.

as long as it portrays the WH in a negative light. There's one thing that I've realized these last two years, and that's the reality that as a lifelong Democrat, I have almost nothing in common with today's "progressives" or "liberals" or whatever it is you guys are calling yourselves these days.

Today's "progressives" seemingly have much more in common with The Tea Party than they do with Democrats. I say, make it official.

Completely ridiculous. You are waste of my time. Have a nice life.

;)

It's amazing to watch. I wonder what it is that suddenly makes the left as rabid as the right? I think I know but I wouldn't dare say it. :hide:

;)

NATO got involved in Libya, the Usual Suspects went into Stalinist mode and not that Gadaffi's Brega line is crumbling (500 soldiers or mercs.. can't remember which... just surrendered en masse) they're panicking.

Well, that and the usual reasons, of course.

...but you might want to try it this time.

Greenwald's article is about the fact that a senior WH official advanced a narrative which was uncritically promoted in the big media outlets as unvarnished fact, and later turned out to be untrue. It was other WH officials who undermined the initial claims, not some loony with a tinfoil cap.

The article is about our big media outlets' willingness to parrot government narratives without question, essentially dressing up WH press releases as investigative pieces. That ought to bother you as much as it did when the whole Jessica Lynch saga was going on. I am assuming that bothered you, of course.

Greenwald described another instance of the government releasing a false narrative, and seeing it parroted and reinforced by big media outlets without question. That is what happened here, as with Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman.

The far right typically has a slavish devotion to authority, and believe anything their authority figures tell them to believe without question-- even when those claims are demonstrably untrue. In that respect, their nearest analogs on the left are personality cultists who typically huddle up in the "moderate" area.

Left and right (wrong) have their fringes, and in my experience both share a distrust for the government of the other side i.e. We didn't believe anything Bush said, they don't believe anything Obama says, etc. The truth likely lies somewhere in between. Good journalism searches for those truths.

If Greenwald does his job WELL we'll get closer to the truth. Two days after a secret mission which killed the world's most wanted fugitive may be premature to fully report the story.

habitual liar. It wasn't a matter of politics-- at least it wasn't for me.

Good journalists search for facts, which is the whole point Greenwald is making here. His complaint is with our major media outlets, who act as stenographers for the government instead of critical, skeptical journalists in cases like this.

And by the way, that "somewhere in between, the truth lies" approach is not workable. Facts have nothing to do with spin, and spin can never be used as an easy guide to locating reality. The truth is not something that just naturally grows between two piles of bullshit.

Nothing is more beautiful or horrible than the truth. And yes, it likely lies somewhere in between.

Let's get the facts and then tell the story. Believe it or not.

It will help further define the issue

We're supposed to hire them, keep an eye on them, and fire them when they screw up.

some of the posts on this thread. If the gummint says it, it must be right. Especially if the gummint says it first.

REC.

are posted since Monday morning. I've gone to all the links and read every article posted from the links there.

The administration officials who have been leaking to the medea are always "unofficial" except for Brenner who constantly contradicts whatever the other "anonymous" officials are saying in these reports from all the major news sites. There have been a number of contraditions. The helicopter "malfunctioned and was destroyed" was contradicted as "it took fire from Osama guards, crashed and then was destroyed" to the current version which is that it malfunctioned on take off after the mission was completed and then was blown up." Then there is a picture from one of the networks showing what looks like a very teeny helicopter cordoned off behind a red screen that doesn't show it blown up. That's just one example of what I've seen and anyone can go over to TPM and read through all the articles linked from the first reports and catalog all the differing versions (including the differing reports about "human shield, fire fight or not armed, shot twice in the head to shot in head and chest, on and on.)

What all these differing reports coming out from "Senior Government Officials" countering each other seems to say that Obama has some very conflicting people in his administration who are warring with each other to obfuscate what happened. I don't know why this would be since Obama keeps such tight control, other than he has NeoCon Moles who are trying to spin everything to reflect badly on the White House for their own purposes.

Anyway, since there are people here who would contradict anything anyone says no matter how thoroughly they read or what sources they read, I probably shouldn't have bothered with this post. But, I just had a need to say what I've read with my own eyes from all the legitimate news sources.

----------------
Here is the source for all the articles where one can see the reports which keep changing from the various media sources.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/bin_laden_wire/bi...

From the article:

"what does matter is how dutifully American media outlets publish as 'news reports' what are absolutely nothing other than official White House statements masquerading as an investigative article. And the fact that this process continuously produces highly and deliberately misleading accounts of the most significant news items -- falsehoods which endure no matter how decisively they are debunked in subsequent days . . . . "

This is a HUGE problem which works AGAINST progressives more often than for. We shd be grateful for Greenwald's efforts to call it out!

and how bad we should feel abou it. :eyes:

Is not o.k. when we do it either.

:hi:

Jingoistic media stenographers suck no matter who is in the White House.

:rofl:

is anywhere close to Alex Jones territory.

Ha, ha.

He's questioning the government's inconsistent narrative! He must be in favor of Osama bin Laden and a terrorist fellow traveler!

I don't listen to anyone called "a senior white house aid" until a name is used... too bad Politico doesn't adhere to the same standards.

There has been a huge amount of assumptions and far too much speculation... nameless speculation... DU isn't any better right now. It's a pathetic soup of misinformation from unnamed sources. Of course it isn't matching the facts... which are just now coming out.

Tillman come to mind.

what does he know...nothing.

actually countering his arguments. The ad hominem stuff has already been done.

No counter argument. Got it.

He must be right, then.

Wrong reporter.

Propaganda sucks.

This does not mean whether I really care if he was shot unarmed. It means I no longer expect truthful statements from the US government or their repetition by US media. I no longer watch "the news". I haven't since the pile of lies about Iraq. I only watch a few shows on MSNBC in the evenings.

Or at least had guns close by.

Did any of them get a shot off? Who knows? Hopefully they didn't. But we can't have extrajudicial executions. That is the hallmark of a military dictatorship.

or grown ups, that is not a fear assessment.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Laden+wasn+armed+when+shot+White+House+says/4719715/story.html

WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday substantially revised its version of Osama bin Laden's death, revealing the al-Qaida leader was not armed when he was shot in the head by U.S. Commandoes.

A spokesman for President Barack Obama also backtracked on earlier White House claims that bin Laden used his wife as a human shield to protect himself.

Now, officials say a woman who was not bin Laden's wife rushed U.S. assaulters and was injured, not killed.

One woman did die in the raid, but she was caught in the "crossfire" of a firefight on a separate floor of the large compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

The new details contradict on-the-record and off-the-record versions offered by senior U.S. officials about how the operation went down, including statements that bin Laden had a weapon.



There's another sentence about the White House deciding whether or not to release photos and at the bottom of the article it says "More to come..."


Fairly clear synopsis of the point Greenwald makes about the version of events being changed. Given the small group of people at the White House releasing this information, I think it's valid to wonder why the version is being changed so much.

Try whipping up some faux outrage over this one.

Fop whatever reason, someone decided to pull the initial "Official Story," and let some facts come out.

Perhaps, Obama wanted to honest? Perhaps they figured video of action might leak too soon. Who knows.

Not sure it makes any difference in this case. In other "Action" thousands die under the cover of the Official Story.