SEAL commander: The Bin Laden shooter knew he had health insurance
“This former SEAL made a deliberate and informed decision to leave the Navy several years short of retirement status,” Rear Adm. Sean Pybus, commander of Naval Special Warfare Command, wrote in a statement. “Months ahead of his separation, he was counseled on status and benefits, and provided with options to continue his career until retirement eligible. Claims to the contrary in these matters are false.”
Pybus said he is “very disappointed with the few people who use their SEAL cachet for self-serving purposes, particularly through falsehoods and certainly when the safety and security of themselves and their active-duty teammates and families are put at risk.”
However, he said the Navy will help the former SEAL “address health or transition issues, as we would for other former members.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Hm. So does this verify that he really was part of the team, but is lying about the terms of his separation from the Navy?
Dunno the whole story here, but clearly the Esquire story is rubbish.
cs89 on February 15, 2013 at 4:20 PM
Sean,
Here’s a thought. Shut up and help the man. He’s family. No need to blab to the press about your family member’s difficulties.
Christien on February 15, 2013 at 4:23 PM
Here’s a comment from a former SEAL. :
http://sofrep.com/17340/ubl-shooter-should-maintain-some-professional-dignity/
juliesa on February 15, 2013 at 4:26 PM
Here’s a thought, the “self-Reliant” Shooter might just avail himself of the benefits to which he is both entitled and briefed upon? Just thought, you know this “hero” seems to want something above and beyond what he is already entiled to.
Should the Navy and the VA send by a Welcome Wagon Christien?
JFKY on February 15, 2013 at 4:27 PM
Yeah, better they let the lie remain out there. And last I checked, it’s the family member that blabbed to the press about his difficulties.
xblade on February 15, 2013 at 4:27 PM
Hmm, he advises more “STFU in the Brotherhood”…by blogging about it. How ironic.
Christien on February 15, 2013 at 4:30 PM
Here’s a thought. Help the guy out and quit blabbing openly about it…something they are rightfully miffed at him for doing in the first place.
Christien on February 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM
And now they’re blabbing to the press, too. Wonderful.
Christien on February 15, 2013 at 4:34 PM
What are you basing THAT on? The EQ story is ONE MAN’S version of the story. If you read the damned story – they also mention that Bissell has a book coming out with a different version of events.
I’d say this admission by a Flag Officer absolutely VERIFIES that EQ has a story with the actual shooter of UBL.
THAT’S the news here.
HondaV65 on February 15, 2013 at 4:50 PM
My take on this now is … the shooter of UBL was a brave SEAL and a good shooter …
But he certainly had some character flaws.
He’s whining now … and he should not be. He was informed and he knew the consequences of getting out. Having been a Navy Command Master Chief – I will tell you that ANY Sailor who chooses to leave with only a few years remaining until retirement is ALWAYS A BIG DEAL.
This guy would have been talked to by his Career Counselor, his CMC, XO, CO … and the CO would have picked up the phone and probably gotten the guy in to see his Admiral if the CO couldn’t talk the guy out of making this kind of stupid decision.
I think this guy lodged himself between the Navy and his own personal pride … and he threatened to pack sand unless he received certain things … and they refused to give him those things … so he had no choice but to back down or get out.
SEALS don’t back down – but they do often make terrible decisions due to ego.
HondaV65 on February 15, 2013 at 4:56 PM
from juliesa’s linked story:
Yeah, that might explain a lot.
GWB on February 15, 2013 at 5:04 PM
I find the entire story to be rubbish (to use another poster’s word). There is no way this man didn’t know he needed his 20 to get his bennies, and there is no way the Navy wouldn’t have kept such a hero for another 4 years in another capacity, requiring no deployment and providing easy duty.
I call BS on the entire story. I’m not convinced that the article is about the OBL shooter at all.
ladyingray on February 15, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Agreed. My ex got out with 15 1/2 years. Now, 30+ years later, he regrets it.
ladyingray on February 15, 2013 at 5:49 PM
I’m basing “THAT” on the fact that the central crux of the Esquire article was that this poor SEAL was left high & dry, with no $ or health insurance, and was apparently blindsided by these circumstances.
Multiple personal experiences with friends & family members who have served build my confidence that the central thrust of the Esquire article is false, and this general statement from the linked article is very convincing:
Also, this specific statement of the active commander is a very effective torpedo to the “UBL shooter’s” version as reported:
As I noted earlier, the Esquire account is simply rubbish. With an angle that was seen, and shot down by informed readers quickly.
cs89 on February 15, 2013 at 5:51 PM
With this announcement in mind, it should be considered now as a possibility that the writer — who was it, Bernstein or thereabouts — and ESQUIRE made an overt attempt to discredit the military.
I dunno. But that possibility certainly should be considered.
Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM
And that’s ^^ about as realistic a take on this as can be. Well said.
Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 5:57 PM
With you or the service? Sorry, I couldn’t help but swing.
arnold ziffel on February 15, 2013 at 6:16 PM
LOL – how does that make the article rubbish you fool? I told you the article was ONE MAN’S story – they’ve got the legitimate shooter of Bin Laden here – and the SEAL admiral all but confirms it. Now … I’m not saying everything in this SEAL’s story or the article is absolutely true – but the premise is correct … in that this was a guy who, at the very least – was on the raid and is likely the guy, or one of the guys who made the fatal shots.
I don’t have such THIRD HAND experience. I was IN THE NAVY for 24 years active, participated in Iraq and Afghan wars and retired as an E9 Command Master Chief. Again – I never said everything this guy was saying was true – look up at my post – I actually say the SEAL shooter has character flaws.
Yo dumbass … Esquire’s account? Esquire’s account? This is the SHOOTER’S account. What you’re really saying is … THE SHOOTER IS LYING TO ESQUIRE. Esquire doesn’t know whether things he tells them are true or false – they print them because they’ve verified this is the guy – anything the guy makes up in his mind that isn’t true is almost impossible for Esquire to verify.
HondaV65 on February 15, 2013 at 6:25 PM
HA seems to post and then delete some of my comments. Guess I’ll screen shot this one.
Long story short. Read the SOFREP.COM article Julie linked. It tells you all you need to know (aside from the lingering question about whether the shooter really is the shooter).
CorporatePiggy on February 15, 2013 at 6:35 PM
I said it before. “The Shooter” is a composite made up by the author. Like Julia. He’s a figurehead for disgruntled ex-GIs who didn’t pay attention during their separation briefings.
Mitoch55 on February 15, 2013 at 6:41 PM