White House Briefing: Osama bin Laden Not Armed

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is holding a briefing right now. He said Osama bin Laden was not armed when he was shot during the raid. You can watch live here.

Carney says the photo of bin Laden is very gruesome. No decision yet on whether to release it.

< Following the Osama bin Laden Courier Links | She Said It >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    probally a video of the whole thing (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by loveed on Tue May 03, 2011 at 04:03:51 PM EST
    I'am glad that OSBL is dead. I would have perfered him captured alive. It's the american way. I really don't want to here about how difficult this would be. We're american,and should stand by our values.
     Eventually someone is going to demand the release of this video (repub.house members,presidental canidate,comedians,americans,ect..)
     I truly hope they did not just kill him. Especially if he was surrendering.
     Also the cheering in the streets troubled me. A man died.A large amount of people in this world did not feel the same way we do. Sometimes we are so selfcentered.

    Has he said who was shooting back at the (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Tue May 03, 2011 at 01:30:06 PM EST
    Seals? I only ask because the use of the term 'firefight' implies enemy fire.

    sorry, can't watch myself on the office PC.

    I read that he had armed guards- (none / 0) (#16)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:03:36 PM EST
    seems unlikely he'd be living in a walled compound and not have it guarded. Also, that he had his sons(all or some) there who were probably armed. I get the impression that there were a number of dead or wounded left there for the Pakistanis to deal with. Suppose the details will come out eventually.

    They will probably release a photo (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    at some point simply because like the birth certificate, some people just don't want to believe it is true for a variety of reasons and they all aren't in the United States either.  I'm so glad that this isn't the Bush administration though who couldn't wait to release photos of Saddam's sons all shot up while they did a victory lap.  That was very unpleasant and degrading in general IMO.

    censorship (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by star on Tue May 03, 2011 at 01:55:58 PM EST
    Like in USA is not there in other parts of the world. In India and Pak, even most gruesome pictures are spalshed in Tv all the time. pretty much same in Europe.I remember there was a school fire and a few middle school kids were killed in an incident and It was all over Tv in london. I was shocked at the insensitivity.
     So when USA is so reluctant to show pictures, immediately conspiracy theories start up.

    This is a different gruesome though (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 02:03:00 PM EST
    We ordered this person killed if he didn't immediately surrender like a newborn kitten.  We are singularly responsible for the wounds you will see on this corpse and as a nation the majority of us aren't repentant about it either.  It is censorship though.  Governments are always reluctant about releasing such evidence, all governments

    Does anyone really believe that (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Anne on Tue May 03, 2011 at 02:44:41 PM EST
    even if they had come into the house and found Osama on his knees with his hands behind his head that they wouldn't have taken him out and worried about the details later?

    Unless we knew who else was in the compound, where they were located, whether they were armed or the building booby-trapped, who would imagine us risking harm to the commando team by asking questions first and shooting later?

    I feel like I have heard so many different versions of what went down that I don't know what to believe; for a mission that apparently went off with some precision - other than the problem with the helicopter - I find it somewhat difficult to understand this seeming sloppiness-of-message.

    While there is definitely credit to the Obama administration for pulling off this mission, I can't help but see a huge potential to cherry-pick from among these many conflicting statements to find those that will put the worst possible light on it for the usual political pusposes.  I mean, there are people who would do that anyway, even if everyone had been on the same message, with the same details, but what I don't understand is, why create that kind of opportunity?


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:12:40 PM EST
    if he could be taken alive I think they would have taken him. Can you imagine what kind of knowledge they could have gotten out of him?

    Yes Anne (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    I believe if he would have surrendered when they heard the helicopters in the compound...which does happen....they would have taken him alive.  Focus on that word booby-trapped.  Terrorist use that a lot and they usually have plans for booby-traps too, a lot of them right now

    I doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by star on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:02:58 PM EST
    The mission was to kill him .capture is a by word for the heck of it. they meant to shoot him on sight and that is what they did.

    Whatever (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:05:48 PM EST
    From all accounts, the photos are gruesome (none / 0) (#5)
    by shoephone on Tue May 03, 2011 at 02:34:00 PM EST
    and you can be sure that, as soon as they are released, they will be splashed all over newspapers, TV, and the internet, for weeks to come. Morning, noon, and night, it will be all that we see. Will the release of the photos convince the nutbag right wingers of Bin Laden's death? No. Will it further inflame Muslims around the world? That one's a no-brainer. I do not see the value in doing this.

    First of all, (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 03, 2011 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    I think releasing the pics is more for the benefit of those non-American non-believers than it is American non-believers.

    Second, are there really a lot of "nutbag right wingers" who don't believe his is dead? If so, how are you aware of them? Is there something you've read that makes you think this is true?

    I'm not saying it's not true, I just would like to see the evidence of it myself.


    Just google "Is Osama really dead."? (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 03, 2011 at 02:50:02 PM EST
    Quite a few links and even a poll. About 29,900,000 results per The Google.

    That's exactly what I did. (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:07:37 PM EST
    Lots of Pakistani TV, etc., hits.

    googling 'left wing is osama really dead' (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:19:26 PM EST
    got "About 1,740,000 results (0.16 seconds)"

    This was the first one:

    Is Osama Bin Laden Really Dead? DNA Results Not Confirmed Yet
    A left-wing look at politics, news and world events ... Is Osama Bin Laden Really Dead? DNA Results Not Confirmed Yet. - May 2, 2011 ...
    leosigh.com/?p=2843 - Cached
    What is Leo Sigh?
    Leo Sigh is the phonetic translation of the Thai words "Turn Left". We are left-wing writers who are sick of the garbage the right-wing spews. So, it's our turn for an opinion and, boy, do we have one - about everything.

    right wing is Osama really dead? (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:37:11 PM EST
    Advanced search
    About 3,310,000

    Led by Fox's Andrew Napolitano, right-wing media figures have embraced yet another conspiracy theory aimed at attacking President Obama: that Osama bin Laden might not be dead. Right-wing media have previously promoted the false conspiracy theory that Obama was not born in United States and the myth that Obama is a Muslim.

    On his radio show today Glenn Beck claimed that something isn't right with the story of the death of Osama Bin Laden, and he floated a conspiracy theory that Bin Laden isn't really dead. Beck said, "Are we seeing a show? Is it possible that Osama Bin Laden has been ghosted out of his compound?"

    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Tue May 03, 2011 at 02:43:13 PM EST
    "I'm not saying it's not true, I just would like to see the evidence of it myself."

    Nutbag right winger!!!!


    Evidence of a lot of nutbag right wingers (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:11:08 PM EST
    that don't believe he's dead.

    If you think I don't believe he's dead you are clearly a major moonbat.


    Heh (none / 0) (#42)
    by vicndabx on Tue May 03, 2011 at 04:07:55 PM EST
    touche pussycat

    So, what you're saying is, (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Tue May 03, 2011 at 02:59:28 PM EST
    I think, better to release the pictures and convert the non-believers to believers and feed the volatility level, than to hold the photos back and allow people to believe he's still alive?

    Am I extrapolating the wrong conclusion from your comment?

    I guess it comes down to who we are trying to reach and what we hope to accomplish by releasing any photos.  If this is all about convincing the non-believers and conspiracy theorists, I think we have to ask why it's so important that they believe bin Laden's dead?  Is it to score political points, or is there some other reason why it matters?

    Is it about showing the world that we know how to deal with evil?  If so, then let's see the photos of the tortured detainees, too - we keep claiming that these are evil people, too, and that's why they are in detention, so what's the difference.

    We seem to want credit for the bin Laden killing, but not for torturing of people we deemed potential or actual or alleged terrorists; could we be sending any more of a mixed message, or make this any more confusing from a policy standpoint than it is?

    Sigh...time for an Advil or three.


    Am I extrapolating the wrong conclusion (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    Am I extrapolating the wrong conclusion from your comment?

    Wow, are you ever.

    You said you thought this was for the benefit (none / 0) (#35)
    by Anne on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:59:14 PM EST
    of those who don't believe he's dead, right?  Why is it so important that they be convinced?  Can we make them believe if they aren't inclined to trust us?  I'm thinking not.

    And we can't limit the exposure of the photos to only that segment of the world's population that isn't convinced, so, what is there to be gained by also putting these photos in the faces of people who will be inflamed/enraged by them?

    It would have been nice if you had deigned to respond with more than "wow, are you ever," which doesn't really tell me anything, or help me understand your thought process.  But, whatever.


    Let me rephrase my comment: (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 03, 2011 at 04:22:13 PM EST
    Hopefully that will save you a few Advils.

    I think the WH's reasoning for considering releasing the pics is more for the benefit of those non-American non-believers than it is American non-believers.

    so what ARE you (none / 0) (#36)
    by sj on Tue May 03, 2011 at 04:00:36 PM EST
    talking about then?

    If you believe he's dead (none / 0) (#13)
    by shoephone on Tue May 03, 2011 at 02:59:57 PM EST
    then why do you need "evidence"?

    You just proved my point.


    despite my snarky reply (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:06:43 PM EST
    making fun of that statement, I'm 99% sure he meant evidence that right-wingers don't believe it.

    My apologies.

    NRW (none / 0) (#14)
    by star on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    It is just convenient to blame and name call just for the heck of it. I have not heard anywhere that Right WIng NUts are questioning the events of May 1st. If anything this kind of macho operation is right down their alley I would think.

    Had this SEAL operation happened during Bush years- had he sent American commandos to a sovereign country with out their permission, I would like to know how much disbelief would be their from our camp?? Had commandos put bullet into an unarmed OBL , how would we all be reacting? Would we not be screaming bloody murder for not capturing and trying him alive ?

    Get off American media and check out the rest of the world- there is genuine skepticism about the timing of operation , considering USA had credible intel about OBL being in Abbotabad as early as August 2010. There are also serious questions about lack of any intervention from pak cantonment a stones throw away for all of 40 minutes of real heavy fire fight..  


    If we have something "credible" though (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    We aren't going to do something like this unless we know for certain as much as we possibly can.  And secondly, we are probably going to watch the compound and gather more intel about those who come and go while we are making certain the target is who we think it is.  I'm sure we got a lot of that too.

    And if Bush would have gotten Bin Laden (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:07:09 PM EST
    this way, I would have been fine with it.  I would have been just fine with it.

    And you forgot (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:08:03 PM EST
    Had they dumped him in the sea without telling anyone first.....

    But answer to all of these questions? Resounding yes.


    Glad to hear it (none / 0) (#27)
    by star on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    no ambiguity from any of you. I would have liked to get him alive and put him through our justice system. But may be that is whishful thinking ,since we are not putting the ones we have actually captured on trial.

    I find no fault with my President (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 04:07:10 PM EST
    when it comes to every choice and every command he issued in this mission to get Osama Bin Laden and deal with the aftermath.  I support every move made by him, his principals, and the troops that carried it out.  I support them fully on every decision made and the execution of those decisions.

    Not a stone's throw (none / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:26:02 PM EST
    a full kilometer.  Not a barracks, either, but an academy.  Also not a 40-minute firefight but something much less than that since they had time to search and remove papers and computer storage devices before they left.

    40 minutes total (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MKS on Tue May 03, 2011 at 04:06:25 PM EST
    ...on the ground....

    That would mean firefight first and search second....Shooting maybe a couple of minutes.....SEALS too good to get into a prolonged firefight that would only draw more attention and enemy forces....


    Had... (none / 0) (#52)
    by BTAL on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:23:34 PM EST
    Had this SEAL operation happened during Bush years- had he sent American commandos to a sovereign country with out their permission, I would like to know how much disbelief would be their from our camp?? Had commandos put bullet into an unarmed OBL , how would we all be reacting?

    You mean like shouts for war crime charges?  

    To pick up from an earlier thread where Jeralyn labeled the action "murder"; with the WH clearly stating OBL was unarmed, when will those shouts be coming from the left?


    What a load of (none / 0) (#57)
    by BTAL on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:53:37 PM EST

    I asked a very legit question (none / 0) (#62)
    by BTAL on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:28:02 PM EST
    in response to both the commenter I replied to, Jeralyn's posted diary regarding murder and the left's harpie cries for war crime charges against the previous administration.  Yes, it probably does take a wheelbarrow to carry all that.

    If you feel that is "smearing", then am sure a dermatologist can proscribe something for that thin skin condition.

    Maybe you should try getting out of the echo chamber.


    Then jump up to the thread at the top (none / 0) (#66)
    by BTAL on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:37:44 PM EST
    and "hit back" at the report that the compound had no weapons or guards.

    If that is proven true, was it assassination, murder or a war crime?


    See ya. (none / 0) (#68)
    by BTAL on Tue May 03, 2011 at 08:33:53 PM EST
    Guess the host's position is not one you care to address.

    Guess answering the action question is one you care not to address.

    Guess your position is that the D vs R politics and WH messaging are the most important issues here.

    Obviously, you chose to fall back into your normal ad hominem debate style.

    Yes, it is better that you take your leave.

    Have a good night too sir.


    Remember (none / 0) (#75)
    by lilburro on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:46:48 AM EST
    the primary issue is not

    Bush's incompetency


    Potential "leftist" hypocrisy

    on an

    issue that led to us invading two nations and running up the deficit (OMG!!).

    And now international law / domestic law / any law at all matters?



    I remember that line from the debate (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:31:02 PM EST
    Obama delivered it with such conviction that I was taken aback.

    He clearly wanted to get bin Laden and make that a top priority--which it appears it was not to the prior administration.

    Getting bin Laden will hopefulluy demoralize al Qaeda to new depths of despair and hurt recruitng.  Defeat does not morale engender....

    But, now, soft power is needed too....We need to woo the moderate Muslims.  That means no torture--not too many would give us tips if we would torture the suspects....

    And, we need to bypass the yahoos who protest the building of mosques in the U.S.


    because believe it or not (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:46:38 AM EST
    I don't think anyone here would be calling Bush a war criminal for killing Bin Laden.

    It's nice for right-wingers to put liberals in a box and assume we look at every situation as if it were exactly the same, no matter if it's not.  

    Bush is a war criminal for violating the Geneva conventions and torturing detainees.  Plus he's a real @sshole for getting us involved in a pointless war that resulted in him dropping the ball on the real enemy and sending thousands of people unecessarily to their death.

    Comparing that to Obama taking out Bin Laden only works if you have zero critical thinking skills.


    President Obama was pretty clear in the speech (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 03, 2011 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    "After a firefight, they killed Bin Laden."  

    Not "during the firefight" or "as a result of a firefight".

    He was killed, rightly so.

    That was interesting phrasing (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Tue May 03, 2011 at 04:06:57 PM EST
    Time will tell....

    The administration should get it's story straight (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slado on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    In their defense though maybe it's just people at the pentagon and CIA and in the government who weren't directly involved leaking all this bad info.

    The president or somebody high up should just answer all the questions and get all the facts out there along with the photo.

    As in the "Game of Thrones" the king should be able to carry out the execution himself.  In this case we should be able to say exactly what we did if we're going to assassinate someone and avoid all this mindless speculation and bad reporting.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:18:21 PM EST
    but honestly, I don't think it would stop the bad reporting. Name an issue and there's bad reporting about it and remember how bad the media was after 9/11 saying that Sadaam had something to do with it. The media is all about getting it first not necessarily getting it right.

    You're (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    looking at the results of PPUS in action. You're right that they should be derided for what they did but PPUS Obama the guy who actually did it thinks they are a-okay in his book.

    Wait a minute! (none / 0) (#50)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:15:43 PM EST
    JFK was a Democrat, therefore a Marxist (Pinko, Commie, Socialist Traitor)


    Peter King is irrefutably a stand-up, Patriotic, liberty loving

    Makes sense to me; I bet he'll release the "proof" at the "appropriate time."

    Let us pray


    I know (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:16:54 PM EST
    how you feel. I think Obama was extremely naive about the GOP but you know what? I still find this strain within the party. Not to re-fight the primaries but back in 2008 people were saying the reason the GOP was so mean was because of Bill Clinton and if we just get rid of the Clintons the GOP will be nice to us. Now I'm hearing their mean to Obama because he's an African American. So I guess if the next president with a D beside their name is a white guy from Ohio do they think the GOP is going to be nice to us? No, they are never EVER going to be nice to us no matter what we do or what we say and that is the fatal error of Obama.

    Osama bin Laden (none / 0) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 03, 2011 at 04:03:49 PM EST
    was the iconic embodiment of international terrorism whose evil had global reach.  Evidence of his end needs to be shared among those affected to serve closure and to organize an important chapter in  world history.  The key evidence of the corpse was rightly buried at sea to deny the locus of a shrine, but so doing also heightened the need to make other evidence public, including photographs and DNA matches.  Photographs, of course, would not be comfortable to observe, but no less so than what is asked of many juries in discharging their responsibilities as citizens.  The citizens of the world need to have access to the best evidence available.

    there is a video (none / 0) (#43)
    by loveed on Tue May 03, 2011 at 04:14:17 PM EST
    confirned on wolf blitzer show by the deputy security adviser. He also was there watching as the mission unfold.
    Also osbl not armed.

    This Whole Thing Is Starting To Stink (none / 0) (#45)
    by john horse on Tue May 03, 2011 at 05:10:45 PM EST
    Like almost all Americans I was happy that Osama Bin Laden met "justice".  However, am I they only person who thinks that parts of the government's story doesn't make sense.

    First of all, why did they bury him at sea?  They say it was to prevent a shrine for him.  However, couldn't his body be turned over to his family to be buried at a secret location.  And so what if it was buried in a publicly known location.   What country would allow his grave site to be turned into a shrine?  Burying his body at sea certainly creates the suspicion that there was something not on the level about what our government did.  This is not helped by our government having to change its story about what happened.  If the purpose of burying him at sea was to prevent bin Laden from being turned into a martyr then what do you think our government's recent revelation that bin Laden was unarmed has done?

    My worry is not so much (none / 0) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:06:23 PM EST
    the burial at sea (a shrine is possible--the many followers, the myths of martyrdom, and the many nine-year boys named Osama who will be headed for a pilgrimage along with their wives and children in a few years)--as much as it is the rapidity of the burial.  An autopsy on ship would have provided additional evidence (e.g. kidney disease) that would be valuable to identity confirmation.

    I know that. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 04, 2011 at 05:20:57 AM EST
    However, an autopsy could have been performed within that time frame.

    An autopsy takes, on average, (none / 0) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 04, 2011 at 05:24:52 AM EST
    about two hours.

    Are they allowed in the strict (none / 0) (#77)
    by nycstray on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:06:20 AM EST
    traditions of Islam?

    It seems that an autopsy is (none / 0) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 04, 2011 at 12:14:31 PM EST
    permitted under certain circumstances and with the utmost care for dignity.  I am now of the opinion that an autopsy was conducted on Osama; Intelligence officials are not denying (or confirming), probably due to the sensitivities involved.  

    Yeah, I agree (none / 0) (#46)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 03, 2011 at 05:45:21 PM EST
      The Obama administration's handling of the post operation news dissemination certainly leaves a lot to be desired. What the many disparate factions interested in this story speculate about is out of their control, and should be ignored. But, to have a single, coordinated, factual, chronological, and believable story coming out of the white House shouldn't be so hard, I would think.

    Things that seem to beget more questions than they answer.

    1. A " a firefight, total on-site, 40 mins" in close quarters, and no American injuries?
    2. "After fighting themselves upstairs," they found Osama in a bedroom, unarmed, with 10 other people, including children?
    3. They opened fire, at near blank range, because "they thought he was reaching for something?" Were the other men (I think they said 4) killed with him also "reaching for something?"
    4. A major firefight, in a crowded city, surrounded by countless police and military installations, and scores of "retired Generals, with American military helicopters hovering overhead, and no one intervened?  
    5. And I could go on and on (as, I'm sure many here could also)

    Don't get me wrong, having OBL out of the picture is probably a good thing, but after a seemingly, almost flawless military operation you would think the White House P.R. People could've done better.  

    This is a gem (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by star on Tue May 03, 2011 at 05:52:48 PM EST
    "When Benson asked the first U.S. official whether bin Laden tried to grab a weapon or physically attack a commando, the official said only, "He didn't hold up his hands and surrender."

    This one from CNN!!!! WH really need to work on their messaging.. they need to authorize who can and can not speak on behalf of the administration .


    How would the Navy Seals know (none / 0) (#69)
    by Politalkix on Tue May 03, 2011 at 09:32:38 PM EST
    that bin Laden had not rigged the building with explosives or was not wearing an explosive belt, each of which could be detonated by a press of a button or switch. Holding up hands and surrendering is important in these situations.

    and people wonder why (none / 0) (#56)
    by loveed on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:51:04 PM EST
    there a birther movement.
    This should have big bonus for the WH.
    How can they get the facts wrong. Even Jay carny is confused.
    So here we go again,question,disblief,conspiracy ect..

    Bah... (none / 0) (#54)
    by desertswine on Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:47:52 PM EST
    Maybe they should have propped him up in a chair in the front window of the hardware store like they did with the outlaws in the Old West. Just, ya know, as proof of death. Dead is dead.

    Site Violation - spam (none / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 04, 2011 at 07:34:21 AM EST

    But (none / 0) (#74)
    by Nemi on Wed May 04, 2011 at 07:54:01 AM EST
    you have to admire the/ their approach to spamming. Almost sounds believable. ;)