Quote Originally Posted by econ21 View Post
I am not surprised. I did not believe the "wife as human shield" story; it did not sound remotely plausible. The wife trying to protect him and getting shot in the leg makes more sense. I'm also dubious about what exactly "resisting capture" means, given that he did not have a gun. The reason why I was not surprised is that we have seen several times with initial reports of missions or high profile combat episodes that the story changes later on (e.g. the Jessica Lynch episode; the sportsman who died in service in Afghanistan).

Whether they lied, I don't know. One thing that makes me give Washington the benefit of the doubt is that they change the story quite quickly and do seem remarkably open about such matters compared to almost any other government I can think off. If they were going to lie, you'd think they would brazen it out for longer. Because lying and being caught out within a few days just damages your reputation. On the other hand, the initial stories always seem more favorable from a PR purpose. "OBL kills his wife" is great black propaganda. And no doubt there's a segment of the population who catches the initial headlines, then never sees the corrections or cares. Many people are still confused about the lack of any connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. But on balance, I'm inclined to think it's a case of confusion of warfare and PR people spinning initial reports in the most favorable way they can. I'd rather the PR people were reined in and more circumspect, but in today's climate with all the bizzare birther stuff gaining traction, I can see why they fight fire with fire.
Not to burst your bubble of the all knowing all powerful evil CIA/USA military establishment but is it not possible all the stories we heard quoted about human shields and the like in the news were ye know made up by the tv and papers.