I am reminded that (i) there is, as far as I know, no independent corroboration of the purported killing of Osama Bin Laden, and (ii) it was politically a very convenient outcome for the Obama Administration.
If he was still alive then he or his allies wasted a wonderful opportunity to discredit the US. I don't think they're that dumb.
It's like one of the arguments against faked moon landings. The Soviets would have been highly motivated to disprove the events, and had the skills and resources to do so if they had been fake, yet they didn't.
I think it's unlikely that he's still walking around :) However, it is possible that he died or was captured some time before he was allegedly killed. I think that we are unlikely to see any independent evidence either way.
Again, this was a very convenient outcome for the Obama Administration.
> Again, this was a very convenient outcome for the Obama Administration.
as jfb mentioned, this isn't an argument. you're thinking that it's a "motive," except that it's a motive to a crime you haven't provided any evidence for. you're skipping the only step that matters. nevermind that if there was any question, republicans would have made endless mountains of pop corn out of it like they have with the attack on the consulate in Libya.
So was the unemployment rate falling. What's your point?
In all fairness, perhaps this wasn't the best example. The official unemployment rate (U3) isn't the most reliable thing: not only can it be revised in subsequent months, but individuals who no longer qualify for unemployment insurance (but are still looking for work) are no longer counted as "unemployed".
The U6 number is slightly more reliable, but is seldom reported as it is not as politically convenient.
"Trust me, this great thing happened which is going to increase my popularity. There's no to verify that this great thing actually happened, but you know that I wouldn't lie to you."
Given how embarrassing it was to the Pakistani government, wouldn't the fact that they never disputed its occurrence lend great weight to the official story? Unless the theory is that the raid happened but just didn't result in killing the guy, which seems pretty weird.
At its peak in 2010, the US gave Pakistan 4.5 billion dollars in aid [1] (although in more recent years this value has decreased). That sort of money can buy a lot of cooperation.
Isn't it pretty likely that Pakistan, or more specifically the ISI, used some of that money to fund the Taliban? Sandy Gall mention this in his book "War Against the Taliban" - here is a review:
Al Qaeda confirmed his death, his daughter witnessed the attack and his death, photos of his corpse were shown to various members of Congress, etc. Assuming this was all a hoax would require a conspiracy of moon-landing proportions.
