I just read the full seven pages of Bronstein’s very disjointed Esquire article and my conclusion is that it’s most likely partially true that the author had contact with someone(s) from the actual mission but that the protagonist, “Shooter,” is most likely a composite character (like Obama’s girlfriends) created by the liberal Bronstein to provide the literary license to over-dramatize the situation and give the military a black eye. <\/p>\n
I agree with others here that it makes no sense for \u201cShooter\u201d to jump at sixteen years when we all know that the Navy would give a stud like this a non-combat job in a heartbeat if he wasn’t otherwise a screw-up. Bronstein does hint at “Shooter” having problems with his fellow team members as well as higher ups. <\/p>\n
If I wanted to be generous to Bronstein, I might consider that he used a composite character to provide anonymity and protect the SEAL’s who provided him with mission information. But knowing what a lib Bronstein is, I don’t. As is usually true with liberal reporting about the military, we’re probably getting a bit of the real deal slathered with a whole lot of anti-military BS, a partially true fabrication written to support a liberal viewpoint. And it would have been very easy for Bronstein to fact-check the medical benefits angle to determine the truth, which he obviously did not, most likely because it would have derailed his anti-military narrative. <\/p>\n
It would be interesting to hear what Capt. Larry Bailey has to opine. Jonn?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"