Thanks for the detailed response, I upvoted this one.

> appears to have sources with interesting motivations

The veracity of sources issue has been discussed to death in the very article this post responds to. I agree it is a crucial factor, but we're forced to wait for the truth to out. There are journalists who have already responded that they have some corroborating evidence:

* R J Hillhouse: http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/the_spy_who_billed_me/2015/...
* Carlotta Gall: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/magazine/the-detail-in-sey...

> SEALs typically don't need someone to lead them up a staircase.

This detail, even if incorrect or spun by ISI, doesn't seem like a story killer.

> However, outside observers directly after the event showed that the place showed evidence of fighting on all floors.

Agree that there are several conflicting reports (both from the White House on different days, the SEALs themselves, and now Hersh) on the operational details of the mission.

Some accounts claim that the SEALs needed to breach their way in after the crash.

What you are saying would impact the credibility of the story if true. I haven't been able to find any past references for that. Are you able to point me to an archive.org link please?

Note however that the operational details don't necessarily reflect on the political details.

> Hersh clearly misrepresents Sec. Gates comments at one point...

I agree the context of the quote is confusing and perhaps misleading. It seems the source is making one set of claims, but Gates is saying something else in his memoir (‘Why doesn’t everybody just shut the fuck up?’).

The source's claims are: 1) Gates was the only one actively protesting the announcements, 2) Gates objected to the idea of claiming that information was obtained by torture 3) Gates insisted that the agreements with Pakistan had to be honoured.

While you're correct that the quote from Gates does not back up the source's claim, it does not actually contradict it either.

Re: the drone attack wiping out evidence, the discussion is internal in October, they're discussing what to actually do, versus what to tell the public. The context is quite different, but I agree it's worth paying attention to.

> I do have hands on experience with contradicts another element of the story

Naturally I'm curious, but I understand if you are unable to provide any detail.

> The point is, this is not a criticism of Hersh per se, except in that he gives this one anonymous source too much credit.

I believe he claims two other US sources with corroborating information, "longtime consultants to the Special Operations Command.".

> It just annoys me to see smart people believe something like this...

I certainly don't know that the story is true, but there are a lot of problems with the official explanation. The obvious one is the White House claim that the SEALs managed to fly helicopters 90 minutes over a contested border - bear in mind someone in the neighbourhood tweeted to ask what was up with the helicopter noise and "huge window shaking bang"[1] - and spend 40 minutes shooting up a compound and blowing stuff up without any of the local military doing anything. From what I have read, there were two army bases within a couple of miles of there.

* http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/05/02/osama.tw...

A great quote from Carlotta:

"The local police told me that they received the calls and could have been at the compound within minutes, but army commanders ordered them to stand down and leave the response to the military. Yet despite being barracked nearby, members of the Pakistani Army appear to have arrived only after the SEALs — who spent 40 minutes on the ground without encountering any soldiers — left."