Breakfast Scramble: Why Shoot Bin Laden?

Question Mr. President, from Ann Althouse:

So… was bin Laden shot because he resisted — the official story — or because a live, captured bin Laden would have torn the Obama administration apart?

More over, did the White House send the noted liar John Brennan to lie about the details of bin Laden death to provide cover story for bin Laden being shot and not captured, from Michelle:

So Politico’s Josh Gerstein reports that White House officials are walking back key details disclosed by Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan at his bin Laden briefing yesterday.

The administration account has now been “modified.” You know all that sensational stuff about bin Laden having a gun and using one of his wives as a human shield? Never mind

Were the Obami trying to kill bin Laden, or just keep him out of Eric Holder’s hands?

Did Obama even want bin Laden killed?   Pam Geller links a story which suggest Usama bin Laden was not taken out by POTUS (President of the United States) but rather by a government coup, from Atlas Shrugs:

A reluctant American president who was ultimately overridden by senior military and intelligence officials to finally take out terrorist Osama Bin Laden…

If the above report is correct, and  I am not saying it is, then President Obama is covering up a coup.  So who is running the country?

Is al Qaeda an arm of Pakistan intelligence? From Jay Tea, Wizbang:

The discovery that Osama Bin Laden’s hideout was in a suburb of Pakistan’s capitol, in a neighborhood filled with military retirees, across the street from a police station, and half a mile from Pakistan’s West Point strains credibility beyond the breaking point. It is simply not plausible that the Pakistanis had no idea Bin Laden was there, and had been there for years. And that raises a lot of questions that many people simply didn’t want to even consider for so long.

No shit Sherlock, the classic economist Thomas Sowell put his finger on why business are unwilling to lend money, from RCP:

The policies of this administration make it risky to lend money, with Washington politicians coming up with one reason after another why borrowers shouldn’t have to pay it back when it is due, or perhaps not pay it all back at all. That’s called “loan modification” or various other fancy names for welching on debts. Is it surprising that lenders have become reluctant to lend?

White House not reading this blog,  Eric I am hurt.   A small town paper makes a negative inference with respect to FLOTUS, the Fat Lady of the United States a cease and desist from the White House,  but so far no cease and desist requests for my references to FlOTUS, from Doug Powers @  Michelle Malkin:

A small, local news outlet with a name like “Pleasanton Weekly” doesn’t sound very threatening, but according to an email sent to the Daily Caller, the publication has some journalistic teeth that the White House thought needed to be filed down — specifically, the choppers that made Michelle Obama come across as snooty

Then maybe they should.

edit (DavidL)   Inserted not.