“The Shooter”, and other Unanswered Questions…
Esquire appears emotionally attached to their story, and they’re not looking objectively at the situation. Sure their guy was on the raid, is known in the community, and would have checked out as legit. There’s never been an issue with any of that.
The main issues I have with their story are the “shooters” embellishment of his role in the operation, and Bronstein’s lack of understanding and reporting around how the military and Veterans Affairs (VA) entitlement programs work. With an article that has a TMZ-like headline of how the government screwed the man who shot UBL, this seems like an important topic of discussion that was completely left out. If Bronstein had done his homework he would have understood that their “shooter” was eligible for his paid retirement and full medical benefits in four years, and that he gave this up on his own. Our sources say he was actually encouraged to take another assignment outside of DEVGRU in order to qualify for full benefits. Was the question ever asked, “Why did you give these benefits up?”. It was his decision alone, and not anyone in government. There are numerous paid VA benefits available for eduction, and job training that continue to be available to the “shooter”.
Another important question Esquire’s editor David Granger should answer is, “was their shooter kicked off his assault team at SEAL Team 6?”. Because if he answers yes (we know it is), there’s your motive behind why their shooter would embellish his role in an operation that was about the team, not an individual. And Granger further speculating on CNN’s sources, and pointing out that the Esquire article was 15,000 words in length is irrelevant. It certainly doesn’t dig them out of the hole they’re in, or answer the hard questions posed above, it just comes across as whining.
These are important questions that both Granger and Bronstein should address.
Esquire’s headline about the shooter being screwed by the American government is BS. He screwed both himself and Esquire with that story. And Bronstein’s article and it’s lack of reporting on how the Department of Defense benefit system truly works is an embarrassment to anyone who has ever served in the military or Special Operations community. He certainly didn’t do his source any favors with how he was portrayed in the story, in fact he looks a lot like the shooter (McGavin) in our featured image…
%EMBED2%
“The Shooter”, and other Unanswered Questions…
Esquire appears emotionally attached to their story, and they’re not looking objectively at the situation. Sure their guy was on the raid, is known in the community, and would have checked out as legit. There’s never been an issue with any of that.
The main issues I have with their story are the “shooters” embellishment of his role in the operation, and Bronstein’s lack of understanding and reporting around how the military and Veterans Affairs (VA) entitlement programs work. With an article that has a TMZ-like headline of how the government screwed the man who shot UBL, this seems like an important topic of discussion that was completely left out. If Bronstein had done his homework he would have understood that their “shooter” was eligible for his paid retirement and full medical benefits in four years, and that he gave this up on his own. Our sources say he was actually encouraged to take another assignment outside of DEVGRU in order to qualify for full benefits. Was the question ever asked, “Why did you give these benefits up?”. It was his decision alone, and not anyone in government. There are numerous paid VA benefits available for eduction, and job training that continue to be available to the “shooter”.
Another important question Esquire’s editor David Granger should answer is, “was their shooter kicked off his assault team at SEAL Team 6?”. Because if he answers yes (we know it is), there’s your motive behind why their shooter would embellish his role in an operation that was about the team, not an individual. And Granger further speculating on CNN’s sources, and pointing out that the Esquire article was 15,000 words in length is irrelevant. It certainly doesn’t dig them out of the hole they’re in, or answer the hard questions posed above, it just comes across as whining.
These are important questions that both Granger and Bronstein should address.
Esquire’s headline about the shooter being screwed by the American government is BS. He screwed both himself and Esquire with that story. And Bronstein’s article and it’s lack of reporting on how the Department of Defense benefit system truly works is an embarrassment to anyone who has ever served in the military or Special Operations community. He certainly didn’t do his source any favors with how he was portrayed in the story, in fact he looks a lot like the shooter (McGavin) in our featured image…
%EMBED2%
COMMENTS
There are on this article.
You must become a subscriber or login to view or post comments on this article.