Pakistan Condemns Purported US Airstrike reports WaPo online at 2:00 pm EST. As are many people, I am waiting to know if we "got" al-Zawahri last night. Pakistan's condemnation doesn't necessarily trouble me, since it's an open secret that Pakistan pretends not to cooperate with the US to assuage Islamicists within its borders, but helps us all the time. Last night's version of the story --and even this morning's print version-- cites US sources praising Pakistan's help in tracking al-Zawahri with us for the past two weeks.
This is a follow-up story, so it ought to clear some things up, right? Instead, if you read the whole thing, you find that not a single fact in the incident is uncontested, and the reporter has no additional facts or context, just more opinions and unconfirmed statements. What good is "he said/he said/ they said" at this point? Shouldn't they wait for some facts before they write follow-ups?
UPDATE: Compare this Brian Ross report at ABCNews: it's more succinct, and presuming it's accurate, it allows a likely story to emerge: we got some bad guys, we unfortunately seem to have hurt some innocents too; officials for both governments are talking about five bad guys. I can't help but wonder about this, though:
U.S. officials tell ABC News the bodies were badly burned in the attack, and they have obtained tissues samples that will be flown to Washington for a possible DNA match.How do we happend to have DNA samples for all the world's bad guys? I mean, if you can get close enough to Osama to swab his cheek, can't you kill or arrest him?
