As much as I like to dodge the SEAL drama train these days, there are still a couple of big stories that have left the station before Naval Special Warfare’s WARCOM could put the brakes on. First female Navy SEAL? It’s coming, and in a way you’d never expect…
One story coming out of Joint Special Operations Command is that the Esquire “shooter” isn’t the shooter after all. To be clear, he wasn’t the point man that put the well placed rounds into UBL’s head that ended the terrorist leaders life. Sure he was there, and deserves credit but he wasn’t the man who shot UBL, and ended his life. And this is an important fact that must be clarified.
The actual shooter at Naval Special Warfare Development Group (NSW DEVGRU or SEAL TEAM 6) has continued to maintain his professional integrity and has not come forward with the story, and most likely never will. Looks like Esquire and Bronstein are the ones who are really screwed, not their interviewee; our sources say he’s off cashing large checks from unsuspecting donors who bought the Esquire pity piece.
Here are some interesting insider facts:
One Anonymous JSOC SEAL we spoke with says…
- The “Shooter” was removed from his DEVGRU Squadron for talking about the operation openly after being warned to “can it’
- He was encouraged by leadership to remain in the SEAL community to finish out his career and gain his full retirement benefits
- Apparently against his concerns about personal security he has been very active on the public speaking circuit
There was a discussion among all the SEALs before the raid that none of them wanted to shoot UBL in the head in order to preserve his face for the pictures that we would need to take to help identify the body.
Ok, according to “the shooter,” he was the second man in the stack behind the point man. They had no backup, and so, because they were in a hurry, it was just him and the point man that assaulted up the stairs. I don’t know a single SEAL who would be in a rush to assault the third floor with just two men, there is no hostage so there is no need to hurry. Also, all the people waiting on the third deck had the most time to prepare a defense, so why would you only assault the third floor with just two SEALS. This makes no sense and is simply NOT what happened.
The shooter claims that the point man took a few shots as the man sticks his head out the door…. Ok we all agree on that. But here is where is story goes sideways AGAIN. The shooter claims that the point man, after taking his shots towards the adult male standing in the door, that he then turned his attention towards the women in the hallway. There were ZERO women in the hallway. Also, ZERO shooters are going to take shots at an unidentified adult male, and then simply peal off without following up to see if he hit that target, to go deal with unarmed women. After the point man engaged toward the unknown male (UBL), he DID follow his shots and entered the room. When he saw that UBL was on the floor and no longer a threat, he dropped his weapon, and then at that point dealt with the unarmed females. Even the shooter and No Easy Day say that the point man handled the women.
My point is, the point man would have NEVER dropped his cover on the adult male had he not been 200% sure he was no longer a threat. According to the shooter, the point man stayed in the hallway to deal with the women. Simply not true, because no SEAL I know would have dropped the cover on the male in the room that he had just shot at. The shooter now claims that he enters the room and looks at UBL and shoots him twice in the face as UBL was going for his gun. There was NO WEAPON found in UBLs room until about 5 min into the search, and was found above the door on a shelf. Again, this has never been disputed by anybody, so if the shooter was so sure he was going for his gun….how could he see it???
His story is complete bull shit, and he is covering his ass for the WHY he would have shot UBL at this point. IF the shooter is correct and is looking at an unarmed UBL, according to the ROE’s, he should have simply detained UBL. NOT shot him in the head.
The shooter goes on to explain that he shot him twice in the head… Why did he do this when we discussed before the OP not to shoot him in the head for identification purposes? The FACT is that the point man DID connect and hit UBL in the head. The head shot was the ONLY thing that presented a target for the point man to shoot at….so that’s what he shot at!!!! The point man, after shooting at the mans head, entered the room….saw that UBL was no longer a threat and then pushed the women back. The shooter was the 3 man into the room, and he just re-engaged into the body laying on the floor.
I’ve seen an article from Berghain (an author that actually was at the compound after the raid). He talks about blood splatter on the ceiling. While I don’t think that he is a CSI crime scene investigator, he’s made comments that he thinks the blood splatter backs up the shooter’s story. Well, the shooter is approx 6’4″ and UBL was approx the same height. That would mean the shots were level and not aimed up. The REAL shooter and point man is about 5’5,” and was shooting up the stairs toward the head exposed through the doorway. That would create the angle that is needed to splatter blood on the ceiling.
Everybody within JSOC knows the shooter is full of it. Shortly after the raid, he was FIRED from DEVGRU because of his mouth and talking too much. This is something that is not told in the article either. He’s the stereotypical guy who was running around at the bar telling all the chicks that he was the shooter. While indeed he did shoot, he shot the body as it was 99.9% dead and dying on the floor. The POINT MAN up the stairs landed his shots to the head, which is why he changed his focus to the women.
Interesting. Sorry to rain on your parade, Phil, but your guy is not the actual shooter.
Ok, according to “the shooter,” he was the second man in the stack behind the point man
The shooter was the 3 man into the room, and he just re-engaged into the body laying on the floor.
The way I read it- Bissonette's story matches up better with the new info. If he was the #2 then the pointman went in and pushed the woman aside, and Bissonette and the "shooter" hit himSo someone went past the #2 and beat him to the room or is this a typo?
Now this makes sense, looking at the first quote. Bissonette claimed to be the guy behind the point man, now the details are coming out that the Esquire "shooter" was #2? Esquire acted like their man wasn't Bissonette, but now the details of their interviewee dovetail with B's No Easy Day?
Nice little scam he's running.
I know JSOC is trying to take the high road here, but they need to come out and blast this clown officially. Destroy his integrity and image, and then move on.This is becoming such a comical drama I expect Lifetime to buy the movie rights. "The epic TRUE story of the man behind the man who isn't the man who was the behind the man who killed Usama bin Laden."
Here's what I believe to be true, and the only thing that matters- a United States Navy SEAL killed UBL. I don't care who it was, and I don't think anyone who wasn't on the objective/in the chain-of-command has a right to know.
The fact that all of this dis/information is out is, in my opinion, a direct result of POTUS identifying DEVGRU as the unit that was involved. No information should have been released beyond the fact that UBL was killed by U.S. forces; all inquiries should have been met with a stern, "No comment."
remainder of story: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/world/bergen-who-killed-bin-laden/index.htmlNow, another member of the secretive SEAL Team 6, which executed the bin Laden raid, tells CNN the story of the Shooter as presented in Esquire is false. According to this serving SEAL Team 6 operator, the story is "complete B-S."
SEAL Team 6 operators are now in "serious lockdown" when it comes to "talking to anybody" about the bin Laden raid and say they have been frustrated to see what they consider to be the inaccurate story in Esquire receive considerable play without a response. Phil Bronstein, who wrote the 15,000-word piece about the Shooter for Esquire, was booked on CNN, Fox and many other TV networks after his story came out.
A newly released ethics report from the agency’s inspector general will likely revive the issue—specifically in the agency's accusation that in order to obtain information, the film’s creators bribed several C.I.A. officers with very fancy things.