Doubts On “Official Story” of Bin Laden Killing
Was The New Yorker’s gripping moment-by-moment account of the Abbottabad operation that killed Osama bin Laden great journalism—or the ultimate spin job?
Was The New Yorker’s gripping moment-by-moment account of the Abbottabad operation that killed Osama bin Laden great journalism—or the ultimate spin job?
Forget the “humanitarian crisis” that justified the NATO bombing that helped destroy Qaddafi’s regime. It was always about oil and other strategic issues. And the rebels were a wholly owned subsidiary of West, Inc. Here’s the evidence.
A number of curious security breaches have dogged Obama. Are these simply bizarre, random events, or is someone sending someone a message? There’s a military thread running through it all, and we’d be prudent to take a closer look.
The common refrain that no unknown domestic plots exist, because “someone would have talked” and we would know about them…is plain wrong. People do talk—and suffer the consequences. So there aren’t many of them.
You’ve heard about “someone would have talked”? Well, someone did. An important new eyewitness, a credible one, talks about a second gunman firing at Robert F. Kennedy.
We keep getting reports of atrocities committed by the Syrian government. Those reports may well be accurate. But the truth is usually a bit more complicated in war zones. If news organizations don’t start adopting a higher standard for their reports, another Libyan-style intervention, complete with massive bombing and untold civilian casualties, may be inevitable.
Another massacre in Syria, more rush to blame the side Western governments oppose, followed by corrections. Journalists owe the public better, more careful reporting.
As pressure grows for military intervention in Syria, we are now hearing that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad is behind alleged widespread rape in his country. Didn’t we hear the same thing about Muammar Qaddafi, followed by mounting Western calls for his ouster? As before, when you read the fine print, it gets more complicated.
A campaign to make sure Susan Rice does not become the next Secretary of State tells us a lot about how things really work—in foreign policy, in the establishment, and in the media. ### NEWS FLASH ###, December 13: Susan Rice withdraws name from consideration—this article provides relevant background.
The federal government’s grip on information about the Boston Marathon Bombing investigation and prosecution gets ever more vise-like. A federal judge has rejected the ACLU’s attempt to file a friend of the court brief raising serious constitutional questions about the government’s proceedings against the accused bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. And his defense attorneys have charged that the government continues to withhold investigatory details that Tsarnaev needs to get a fair trial. A civil liberties attorney tells WhoWhatWhy that the judge is acting like “a tool of the U.S. Department of Justice.”
U.S. banks are summarily canceling accounts of some customers with Islamic surnames. Why? They won’t say. And the trend is happening coast to coast, according to a Muslim advocacy group. Is the government behind it?
The old argument goes that conspiracies can’t happen because someone would eventually talk. The flaw in that logic is that people involved in plots rarely speak up—even if they want to—because when they do they nearly always pay a price. Edward Snowden, anyone? So as you read this ClassicWHO repost from two years ago, consider how much relevance it still has in the case of Edward Snowden.