Why Is The Hersh Abbottabad Story Coming Out Now?
By Moon of Alabama
May 12, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - The Hersh
story about the killing of Osama bin Laden gets trashed by the usual
suspects in the main stream media. They have fallen for, and "reported", the
story the White House and the CIA told them. To acknowledge that Hersh is mostly
right on this would embarrass them too much.But they
could have known better. The Hersh story is not new. It is pretty much the same
story R.J. Hillhouse
told back in 2011. Her take was also somewhat
confirmed by the former Pakistani Brigadier FB Ali at Pat Lang's site.
Hillhouse is now
pissed, rightly, that the current Hersh story does not mention her account:
On August 7, 2011, I wrote, among other things:
- The US cover story of how they found bin Laden was
fiction
- OBL was turned in by a walk-in informant, a mid-level
ISI officer seeking to claim $25 million under the "Rewards for Justice"
program.
- The Pakistani Intelligence Service -- ISI -- was
sheltering bin Laden
- Saudi cash was financing the ISI operation keeping
bin Laden captive
- The US presented an ultimatum to Pakistan that they
would lose US funding if they did not cooperate with a US operation
against bin Laden
- Pakistani generals Kiyani and Pasha were involved in
the US operation that killed OBL
- Pakistan pulled out its troops from the area of
Abottabad to facilitate the American raid
- The Obama administration betrayed the cooperating
Pakistani officials
- The Obama administration scrambled to explain the
crashed helicopter when their original drone strike cover story
collapsed
That all make sense and, as I do not believe that Hersh has a
need to simply plagiarize her, is now confirmed by his sources.
The great heroic tales of the seals, the "torture let to bin
Laden" claims by the CIA and all the other nonsense told about the event were
just propaganda.
But one wonders why the story is coming out now. Sure it makes
the White House look bad. It also lets the Pakistani generals look bad but only
in the eyes of the Saudis. But it surely lets the Saudis look bad - those people
who financed Bin Laden and paid the Pakistanis to keep him locked up. Who might
have been that?
Coincidentally a piece in today's NYT about the new Saudi king
gives
hints:
In increasing the kingdom’s regional role, King Salman risks
escalating the conflict with Iran, fueling further instability. And his
support for Islamists could end up empowering extremists, just as
Saudi support for the Afghan jihad decades ago helped
create Al Qaeda.
...
King Salman has a history of working with Islamists. Decades ago, he
was a royal point man and fund-raiser for jihadists going to Afghanistan,
Bosnia and elsewhere.
Salman just
snubbed Obama by declining an invitation to Camp David. He is ignoring U.S.
"advice" to stop the bombing of Yemen. Is someone trying to apply pressure on
him.
It is always interesting when one sees such issues - the Hersh
story, the NYT tale of his AlQaeda financing and Salman's resistance to the
White House orders - come together at a single point in time. Is that directed
or just coincidence?
http://www.moonofalabama.org/