In her inimitable style, Rachel Maddow relates how the shifting, changing details of an “evolving” story can trip up and embarrass anyone who chooses to report on them, especially if they base a political opinion on them. She leaves us with the implicit question of whether the use of shifting details is in fact a political ploy to ensure that commentators are embarrassed and left unwilling to comment on big stories like this.
My original question was whether it was used to spur demands for an investigation. But I did mention how nothing is sure to rile reporters more than giving conflicting details. Here is one riled reporter. Thanks to Ellie. BTW, Ellie thanks those people who have continued to assist her.
“The old designation for this is disinformation. New designation (MDI) Multi-Dimensional Intelligence. Everyone tells a different story until the facts are totally obscured. Public doesn’t deserve to know the truth or people would use the information against us. By the way, there are already new versions of the We Got Osama Story with more expected to follow.”
Patrick Henningsen, editor of 21st Century Wire, calls bin Laden’s “the busiest corpse in show business in the last ten years” and goes over several of the many deaths of Osama bin Laden. Start at 2:15 mark if you want to save time.
Now that bin Laden is gone, Henningsen sees the military-industrial complex as focusing on nation states like Iran, Libya, etc., rather than terrorists. But this is said without factoring in disclosure and all the events to follow. The MIC is almost dead. I don’t think anyone need fear it moving to a new crisis. But if the events of the 2012 scenario were not occurring I would agree with his speculating on what crisis would be next.