This article mentions the feed was not "live." Is he speaking of the photo of onlookers including the President who are claimed
to be watching the attack in real time? Yes, specifically. But so far, we have not found any other source for this. Checking.
The Agendas Behind the bin Laden News Event Paul Craig Roberts May 5, 2011 The US government’s bin Laden
story was so poorly crafted that it did not last 48 hours before being fundamentally altered. Indeed, the new story put out
on Tuesday by White House press secretary Jay Carney bears little resemblance to the original Sunday evening story. The fierce
firefight did not occur. Osama bin Laden did not hide behind a woman. Indeed, bin Laden, Carney said, "was not armed." The
firefight story was instantly suspicious as not a single SEAL got a scratch, despite being up against al Qaeda, described
by former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld as "the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth."
Every original story detail has been changed. It wasn’t bin Laden’s wife who was murdered by the Navy SEALs, but
the wife of an aide. It wasn’t bin Laden’s son, Khalid, who was murdered by the Navy SEALs, but son Hamza. Carney
blamed the changed story on "the fog of war." But there was no firefight, so where did the "fog of war" come from? The
White House has also had to abandon the story that President Obama and his national security team watched tensely as events
unfolded in real time (despite the White House having released photos of the team watching tensely), with the operation conveyed
into the White House by cameras on the SEALs helmets. If Obama was watching the event as it happened, he would have noticed,
one would hope, that there was no firefight and, thus, would not have told the public that bin Laden was killed in a firefight.
Another reason the story had to be abandoned is that if the event was captured on video, every news service in the world would
be asking for the video, but if the event was orchestrated theater, there would be no video. No explanation has been
provided for why an unarmed bin Laden, in the absence of a firefight, was murdered by the SEALs with a shot to the head. For
those who believe the government’s story that "we got bin Laden," the operation can only appear as the most botched
operation in history. What kind of incompetence does it require to senselessly and needlessly kill the most valuable intelligence
asset on the planet? According to the US government, the terrorist movements of the world operated through bin Laden, "the
mastermind." Thanks to a trigger-happy stupid SEAL, a bullet destroyed the most valuable terrorist information on the planet.
Perhaps the SEAL was thinking that he could put a notch on his gun and brag for the rest of his life about being the macho
tough guy who killed Osama bin Laden, the most dangerous man on the planet, who outwitted the US and its European and Israeli
allies and inflicted humiliation on the "world’s only superpower" on 9/11. When such a foundational story as the demise
of bin Laden cannot last 48 hours without acknowledged "discrepancies" that require fundamental alternations to the story,
there are grounds for suspicion in addition to the suspicions arising from the absence of a dead body, from the absence of
any evidence that bin Laden was killed in the raid or that a raid even took place. The entire episode could just be another
event like the August 4, 1964, Gulf of Tonkin event that never happened but succeeded in launching open warfare against North
Vietnam at a huge cost to Americans and Vietnamese and enormous profits to the military/security complex. There is no doubt
that the US is sufficiently incompetent to have needlessly killed bin Laden instead of capturing him. But who can believe
that the US would quickly dispose of the evidence that bin Laden had been terminated? The government’s story is not
believable that the government dumped the proof of its success into the ocean, but has some photos that might be released,