WH press secretary Jay Carney speaks about President Obama’s decision to not release the graphic photos of Osama bin Laden’s corpse, saying it was against national security
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tells reporters that President Barack Obama will not release photos of Osama bin Laden’s body, Wednesday, May 4, 2011, during the daily briefing at the White House in Washington
President Barack Obama ordered grisly photographs of Osama bin Laden in death sealed from public view on Wednesday, declaring, “We don’t need to spike the football” in triumph after this week’s daring middle-of-the-night raid. The terrorist leader was killed by American commandos who burst into his room and feared he was reaching for a nearby weapon, U.S. officials said.
Several weapons were found in the room where the terror chief died, including AK-47 assault rifles and side arms, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity as they offered the most recent in a series of increasingly detailed and sometimes-shifting accounts of bin Laden’s final minutes after a decade on the run.
Obama said releasing the photographs taken by the Navy SEAL raiders was “not who we are” as a country. Though some may deny his death, “the fact of the matter is you will not see bin Laden walking this earth again,” the president said in an interview taped for CBS’ “60 Minutes.”
He said any release of the photos could become a propaganda tool for bin Laden’s adherents eager to incite violence.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said the president’s decision applied to photographs of bin Laden, said to show a portion of his skull blown away from a gunshot wound to the area of his left eye, as well as to a video recording of his burial several hours later in the North Arabian Sea.
The president made no public remarks during the day about the raid, apart from the taped interview. But he arranged a visit for Thursday to ground zero in Manhattan, where the World Trade Center twin towers once stood.
Residents surround the compound where al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was reported to have been killed in this ariel view in Abbottabad May 4, 2011. Bin Laden was unarmed when U.S. special forces shot and killed him, the White House said, as it tried to establish whether its ally Pakistan had helped the al Qaeda leader elude a worldwide manhunt. REUTERS/Faisal Mahmood
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that Osama bin Laden was not armed when a Navy SEAL raiding party confronted him during an assault on his compound in Pakistan. (May 3)
After two days of shifting accounts of the dramatic raid, Carney said he would no longer provide details of the 40-minute operation by the team of elite Navy SEALs. That left unresolved numerous mysteries, prominent among them an exact accounting of bin Laden’s demise. Officials have said he was unarmed but resisted when an unknown number of commandos burst into his room inside the high-security compound.
The officials who gave the latest details said a U.S. commando grabbed a woman who charged toward the SEALs inside the room. They said the raiders were concerned that she might be wearing a suicide vest.
Administration officials have said bin Laden’s body was identified by several means, including a DNA test. Members of Congress who received a briefing during the day said a sample from the body killed at the compound in Pakistan was compared to known DNA from bin Laden’s mother and three sons.
After two days of speculation about releasing the photographs, there was no detectable public debate in the U.S. about the merits of the raid itself against the man behind the terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.
Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress the operation was “entirely lawful and consistent with our values” and justified as “an action of national self-defense.” Noting that bin Laden had admitted his involvement in the events of nearly a decade ago, he said, “It’s lawful to target an enemy commander in the field.”
Holder also said the team that carried out the raid had been trained to take bin Laden alive if he was willing to surrender. “It was a kill-or-capture mission,” he said. “He made no attempt to surrender.”
Bin Laden had evaded capture for nearly a decade, and officials said he had currency as well as two telephone numbers sewn into his clothing when he was killed, suggesting he was prepared to leave his surroundings on a moment’s notice if he sensed danger.
Administration officials said the two dozen SEALs involved in the operation were back at their home base outside Virginia Beach, Va., and the extensive debriefing they underwent was complete. Saluted as heroes nationwide, they remained publicly unidentified because of security concerns.
In addition to bin Laden’s body, the SEALs helicoptered out of the compound with computer files, flash drives, DVDs and documents that intelligence officials have begun analyzing in hopes the information will help them degrade or destroy the network bin Laden left behind.
In New York on Thursday, Carney said, Obama will lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site and hold a private meeting with relatives of some of the victims of the attacks, in which jetliners hijacked by terrorists were flown into the side of first one tower, then the other.
The buildings collapsed within minutes, dooming office workers as well as rescuers who had run in hoping to save them.
A few days later, then-President George W. Bush stood amid the rubble and spoke through a bullhorn. When one worker yelled, “I can’t hear you,” the president responded, “I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people — and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”
A decade — and long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan later — Obama said he had no intention of gloating.
Obama’s decision not to release any photographs was unlikely to be the final word, though.
Some members of Congress have been shown at least one photo of bin Laden, and others have asked to see it, an indication of the intense interest generated by the raid.
Last week I got to attend the first ever “Conservative Lunch Series” presented by KARN and Americans for Prosperity Foundation at the Little Rock Hilton on University Avenue. This monthly luncheon will be held the fourth Wednesday of every month. The speaker for today’s luncheon was John Fund.
John Fund writes the weekly “On the Trail” column for OpinionJournal.com. He is author of “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy” (Encounter, 2004).
He joined The Wall Street Journal as a deputy editorial features editor in 1984 and was a member of the editorial board from 1995 through 2001. The articles he has written have appeared in Esquire, Reader’s Digest, Reason, The New Republic, and National Review. He became an editorial page writer specializing in politics and government in October 1986 and was a member of the Journal’s editorial board from 1995 through 2001. Next month’s guest speaker will be Andrew Breitbart.
First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN who came up with the idea of this luncheon, and then from Teresa Crossland of Americans for Prosperity. After listening to their inspiring short talks I had determined in my heart that I was going to get the word out about these luncheons to all my conservative friends who want to know what is going on politically in Washington and in our beloved Arkansas.
One subject that Fund brought up was the red tape that Arnold Schwarzenegger had to deal with in California. That brings me to the subject that I am going write about today.
Mike Huckabee recently moved to Florida? Why? The answer is easy. Huckabee wants to avoid Arkansas’ high state income tax. Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times wants to call Huckabee a tax fugative, but who can blame him.
Liberals like Brantley and Ernie Dumas want to praise former Arkansas governor Dale Bumpers for raising the state income tax to 7%, but that is the reason our state has the highest state income tax in the area (all bordering states have either lower state income taxes or no state income tax).
Is it any suprise that during the last census that the seven states that do not have an income tax grew in population? Arkansas has suffered from bracket creep and in 1929 you had to make 5 times the average wage to pay any state income tax at all, but now over 66% of tax payers in Arkansas pay at least some of their income at the 7% level.
Arkansas per capita income increased from 44 to 71 percent of the U.S. total between 1939 and 1971. However, we have just grown to 77 percent since 1981.
I go by the username of SalineRepublican and I got this response from “Couldn’tBeBetter“:
And Saline, we can all read about what great shape the Texas budget is in with their no income tax and low taxes. Plenty of money to fight those non-Glovbal Warning brush fires. But then again, their governator wants to be left alone except when he doesn’t want to be left alone. Maybe, Mexico will take them back for a token 25 cents and a future soccer player for a kicker for UAF.
It wasn’t your usual legislative hearing. A group of largely Republican California lawmakers and Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom traveled here last week to hear from businesses that have left their state to set up shop in Texas.
“We came to learn why they would pick up their roots and move in order to grow their businesses,” says GOP Assemblyman Dan Logue, who organized the trip. “Why does Chief Executive magazine rate California the worst state for job and business growth and Texas the best state?”
The contrast is undeniable. Texas has added 165,000 jobs during the last three years while California has lost 1.2 million. California’s jobless rate is 12% compared to 8% in Texas.
“I don’t see this as a partisan issue,” Mr. Newsom told reporters before the group met with Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry. The former San Francisco mayor has many philosophical disagreements with Mr. Perry, but he admitted he was “sick and tired” of hearing about the governor’s success luring businesses to Texas.
State Assemblyman Dan Logue, R., and Assembly Minority Leader Connie Conway, R., during a news conference on the Texas meeting.
Hours after the legislators met with Mr. Perry, another business, Fujitsu Frontech, announced that it is abandoning California. “It’s the 70th business to leave this year,” says California business relocation expert Joe Vranich. “That’s an average of 4.7 per week, up from 3.9 a week last year.” The Lone Star State was the top destination, with 14 of the 70 moving there.
Andy Puzder, the CEO of Hardee’s Restaurants, was one of many witnesses to bemoan California’s hostile regulatory climate. He said it takes six months to two years to secure permits to build a new Carl’s Jr. restaurant in the Golden State, versus the six weeks it takes in Texas. California is also one of only three states that demands overtime pay after an eight-hour day, rather than after a 40-hour week. Such rules wreak havoc on flexible work schedules based on actual need. If there’s a line out the door at a Carl’s Jr. while employees are seen resting, it’s because they aren’t allowed to help: Break time is mandatory.
“You can’t build in California, you can’t manage in California and you have to pay a big tax,” Mr. Puzder told the legislators. “In Texas, it’s the opposite—which is why we’re building 300 new stores there this year.”
Other states are even snatching away parts of California’s entertainment industry. The Milken Institute, based in Santa Monica, Calif., reports that 36,000 entertainment jobs have left the state since 1997. The new film “Battle: Los Angeles,” which is set in California, was filmed in Louisiana.
“The red tape is ridiculous,” says Mark Tolley, the managing partner of B. Knightly Homes, which relocated to Austin from Long Beach in 2005. “Regulators see developers as wearing a black hat and the environmental laws have run amok.”
“I’m a pro-jobs Democrat,” Mr. Newsom told me. “My party needs to get back into the business of jobs.” Mr. Newsom says he’s developing an economic development plan to present to Gov. Jerry Brown, who he says “gets it” on the need for business-friendly policies. Mr. Newsom told me that what impressed him most about Mr. Perry and the Texas legislators was their singular focus on job creation.
California, by contrast, seems to constantly lose focus. Several Democrats who agreed to go on the Texas trip were pressured by public-employee unions to drop out—and many did. And just as Texas business leaders were testifying about how the state’s tort reforms had improved job creation, word came of California’s latest priority: On April 14, the state senate passed a bill mandating that all public school children learn the history of disabled and gay Americans.
One speaker from California shook his head in wonder: “You can have the most liberated lifestyle on the planet, but if you can’t afford to put gas in your car or a roof over your head it’s somewhat limited.”
The most dramatic reform California could make would be to change its boom-and-bust tax system so it doesn’t depend on a small number of wealthy residents who can flee the state. The idea would be to broaden the income tax base and lower the state’s high rates. It works today in seven states ranging from Colorado to Massachusetts. Of course, the Lone Star State has no state income or capital gains tax at all.
“Texas’ economy is far less volatile due to its having neither a progressive income tax system nor a large tax burden,” concludes “Rich States, Poor States,” a study by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Less volatility also allows Texas to keep expenditures in check. While it shares with California the challenge of a huge budget deficit this year, it’s expected to close it without raising taxes. Texas’s overall spending burden remains below what it was in 1987—a remarkable feat.
When Jerry Brown ran for president in 1992, he understood the distorting nature of the tax code and proposed a flat tax with deductions only for rent, mortgage interest and charitable contributions. He called it “a silver bullet” for the economy. Mr. Brown has since abandoned that idea, grousing recently to a state legislator that “the flat tax cost me the New York Democratic primary.”
But if California continues its economic decline, something Texas-sized in its ambitions may be called for— whether it’s a moratorium on new business regulations or a restructuring of the state’s dysfunctional unemployment compensation or litigation. Nothing less is likely to stem the outflow of businesses and jobs from the Golden State.
In the pantry, among the few untouched items are two cartons of eggs. (ABC News)
President Obama deserves a lot of credit for sending the team in. I personally do not like many of the policies of this administration, but this raid was planned very well, and I am glad he made the decisions he did.
An exclusive look inside the Pakistani mansion where the world’s most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, was killed. (ABC News)
A series of medicines were found in the house, including petroleum jelly, antiseptic (the red labeled bottle), nasal spray (the blue box), and eye drops (the bottles tipped over in the front). (ABC News)
In the back yard of the house there are several jugs of cooking oil, including various brands of olive oil and a jug of sunflower oil. (ABC News)
An exclusive look inside the Pakistani mansion where the world’s most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, was killed. (ABC News)
Osama bin Laden may be at the bottom of the ocean, but all of his wives are alive, and one of them may have identified him to the SEALs.
Time magazine reports that “a U.S. intelligence official says one of Bin Laden’s wives identified her husband by name as the SEALs closed in for the kill.”
It would be safe to assume that was a different wife from the one who purportedly was willing to take a bullet for Bin Laden.
It was reported Monday that one of Bin Laden’s wives was used as a human shield and died in the raid. According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, the woman who was in the room with the Al Qaeda leader was one of Bin Laden’s four wives. He said she was shot but not killed, and she was not being used as a shield.
“In the room with Bin Laden, a woman — Bin Laden’s wife — rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed,” Carney read Tuesday from a new account of the dramatic firefight that took place in Pakistan a few days ago…
“We will continue to gather and provide to you details as we get them and we’re able to release them,” Carney said at the news briefing.
Bin Laden’s wife wasn’t the only woman in the compound. Twenty-three children and nine women were in the three-story building at the time of the assault and were turned over to Pakistani authorities, said a U.S. official who requested anonymity to discuss an intelligence matter, the Associated Press reported.
http://bbcbreakingnews.co.cc/
Osama bin Laden is dead, Obama announcesOsama bin Laden, the mastermind behind al-Qaida, is dead, President Obama announces from the White House
Osama bin Laden may be dead, but U.S. officials expect at least one new bin Laden tape to surface soon, according to multiple reports.
According to The New York Daily News, bin Laden may have ordered the tape to be released in the event of his death.
The tape is said to be a recording created not long before his death, though authorities say there is no indication he knew the United States was closing in on him. It’s not clear whether it’s audio or video.
Media outlets will have a tough decision on their hands when the tape does surface. Airing it could potentially boost his legacy as a martyr and incite new violence.
_____________________________________
Several dozen demonstrators gathered in Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi, on Tuesday, to protest against the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a US special forces’ mission a day earlier. Chanting “Obama! Solve your own problems” and “The friend of America is a traitor”, members of Pasban (Pakistan Voice Against Injustice) youth organisation rallied against US troops crossing into Pakistan to raid bin Laden’s compound in the town of Abbottabad.
Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
“Should Unmarried Cohabitation Be Institutionalized?”
“If marriage has been moving toward decreased social and legal recognition and control, cohabitation has moved in the opposite direction, steadily gaining social and legal identification as a distinct new institution. Cohabitation was illegal in all states prior to about 1970 and, although the law is seldom enforced, it remains illegal in a number of states. No state has yet established cohabitation as a legal relationship, but most states have now decriminalized ‘consensual sexual acts’ among adults, which include cohabitation.”
“In lieu of state laws, some marriage-like rights of cohabitors have gradually been established through the courts. The law typically comes into play, for example, when cohabitors who split up have disagreements about the division of property, when one of the partners argues that some kind of oral or implicit marriage-like contract existed, and when the courts accept this position. Whereas property claims by cohabitors traditionally have been denied on the ground that ‘parties to an illegal relationship do not have rights based on that relationship,’ courts have begun to rule more frequently that cohabitors do have certain rights based on such concepts as ‘equitable principles.’”43
“The legal changes underway mean that cohabitation is becoming less of a ‘no-strings attached’ phenomenon, one involving some of the benefits of marriage with none of the costly legal procedures and financial consequences of divorce. In the most famous case, Marvin vs. Marvin, what the news media labeled ‘palimony’ in place of alimony was sought by a woman with whom Hollywood actor Lee Marvin lived for many years. The Supreme Court of California upheld the woman’s claim of an implied contract. Many states have not accepted key elements of the Marvin decision, and the financial award of palimony was eventually rejected on appeal. Yet the proposition that unmarried couples have the right to form contracts has come to be widely acknowledged.”
“In an attempt to reduce the uncertainties of the legal system, some cohabitors are now initiating formal ‘living together contracts.’45 Some of these contracts state clearly, with the intent of avoiding property entanglements should the relationship break down, that the relationship is not a marriage but merely ‘two free and independent human beings who happen to live together.’ Others, in contrast, seek to secure the rights of married couples in such matters as inheritance and child custody. Marriage-like fiscal and legal benefits are also beginning to come to cohabiting couples. In the attempt to provide for gay and lesbian couples, for whom marriage is forbidden, many corporations, universities, municipalities, and even some states now provide “domestic partnership” benefits ranging from health insurance and pensions to the right to inherit the lease of a rent controlled apartment. In the process, such benefits have commonly been offered to unmarried heterosexual couples as well, one reason being to avoid lawsuits charging ‘illegal discrimination.’ Although the legal issues have only begun to be considered, the courts are likely to hold that the withholding of benefits from heterosexual cohabitors when they are offered to same-sex couples is a violation of U. S. laws against sex discrimination.”
“Religions have also started to reconsider cohabitation. Some religions have developed “commitment ceremonies” as an alternative to marriage ceremonies. So far these are mainly intended for same-sex couples and in some cases the elderly, but it seems only a matter of time before their purview is broadened.”
“Unlike in the United States, cohabitation has become an accepted new social institution in most northern European countries, and in several Scandinavian nations cohabitors have virtually the same legal rights as married couples. In Sweden and Denmark, for example, the world’s cohabitation leaders, cohabitors and married couples have the same rights and obligations in taxation, welfare benefits, inheritance, and child care. Only a few differences remain, such as the right to adopt children, but even that difference may soon disappear. Not incidentally, Sweden also has the lowest marriage rate ever recorded (and one of the highest divorce rates); an estimated 30% of all couples sharing a household in Sweden today are unmarried.46 For many Swedish and Danish couples cohabiting has become an alternative rather than a prelude to marriage, and almost all marriages in these nations are now preceded by cohabitation.”
“Is America moving toward the Scandinavian family model? Sweden and Denmark are the world’s most secular societies, and some argue that American religiosity will work against increasing levels of cohabitation. Yet few religions prohibit cohabitation or even actively attempt to discourage it, so the religious barrier may be quite weak. Others argue that most Americans draw a sharper distinction than Scandinavians do between cohabitation and marriage, viewing marriage as a higher and more serious form of commitment. But as the practice of cohabitation in America becomes increasingly common, popular distinctions between cohabitation and marriage are fading. In short, the legal, social and religious barriers to cohabitation are weak and likely to get weaker. Unless there is an unexpected turnaround, America and the other Anglo countries, plus the rest of northern Europe, do appear to be headed in the direction of Scandinavia.”
“The institutionalization of cohabitation in the public and private sectors has potentially serious social consequences that need to be carefully considered. At first glance, in a world where close relationships are in increasingly short supply, why not recognize and support such relationships in whatever form they occur? Surely this is the approach that would seem to blend social justice and compassion with the goal of personal freedom. But is it not in society’s greater interest to foster long-term, committed relationships among childrearing couples? In this regard the advantages of marriage are substantial. It is only marriage that has the implicit long-term contract, the greater sharing of economic and social resources, and the better connection to the larger community.”
“The recognition and support of unmarried cohabitation unfortunately casts marriage as merely one of several alternative lifestyle choices. As the alternatives to it are strengthened, the institution of marriage is bound to weaken. After all, if cohabitors have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples, why bother to marry? Why bother, indeed, if society itself expresses no strong preference one way or the other. It is simpler and less complicated to live together. The expansion of domestic partner benefits to heterosexual cohabiting couples, then, may be an easy way to avoid legal challenges, but the troubling issue arises: cities and private businesses that extend these benefits are in effect subsidizing the formation of fragile family forms. Even more troublingly, they are subsidizing family forms that pose increased risks of violence to women and children. While the granting of certain marriage-like legal rights to cohabiting couples may be advisable in some circumstances to protect children and other dependents in the event of couple break up, an extensive granting of such rights serves to undercut an essential institution that is already established to regulate family relationships. These issues, at the least, should cause us to proceed toward the further institutionalization of unmarried cohabitation only after very careful deliberation and forethought.”
43. Monica A. Seff. 1995. “Cohabitation and the Law.” Marriage and Family Review 21-3/4:141-165. p. 149.
44. Marvin vs. Marvin, 1976. California
45. Toni Ihara and Ralph Warner. 1997. The Living Together Kit: A Guide for Unmarried Couples. Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press, 8th edition. These contracts are not yet upheld by all states, and their enforceability is often in question.
46. Richard F. Tomasson. 1998. “Modern Sweden: The Declining Importance of Marriage.” Scandinavian Review August 1998:83-89. The marriage rate in the United States is two and a half times the Swedish rate.
“The National Marriage Project”
“The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.”
“The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the state of marriage in America and to educate the public on the social, economic and cultural conditions affecting marital success and wellbeing.”
“The National Marriage Project has five immediate goals: (1) publish The State of Our Unions, an annual index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in America; (2) investigate and report on younger adults’ attitudes toward marriage; (3) examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage; (4) serve as a clearinghouse source of research and expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family experts to develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.”
For more information or additional copies of this publication, contact:
The National Marriage Project Rutgers The State University of New Jersey 25 Bishop Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181 (732) 932-2722 marriage@rci.rutgers.edu
Tim Hawkins Things you don’t say to your wife
Official royal wedding photos: Prince William, Kate Middleton are all smiles [Poll]
.
The portraits, taken by their official photographer Hugo Burnand in the Buckingham Palace throne room, include three poses: A romantic image of the couple alone, a cheery ensemble picture of the pair with the children,
and one for the family album, featuring the bride and groom with the wedding party, their parents, siblings and of course William’s grandparents, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.
Of course the monarchy in England no longer has the power that it used to. Now the power is with the house of commons. Likewise, in the USA President Obama and the Congress have all the power.
A drawing, released by the United State Department of Defense May 2, 2011, shows the compound that Osama bin Laden was killed in on Monday in Abbottabad,Pakistan
When one of Osama bin Laden’s most trusted aides picked up the phone last year, he unknowingly led U.S. pursuers to the doorstep of his boss, the world’s most wanted terrorist.
That monitored phone call, recounted Monday by a U.S. official, ended a years-long search for bin Laden’s personal courier, the key break in a worldwide manhunt. The courier, in turn, led U.S. intelligence to a walled compound in northeast Pakistan, where a team of Navy SEALs shot bin Laden to death.
The violent final minutes were the culmination of years of intelligence work. Inside the CIA team hunting bin Laden, it always was clear that bin Laden’s vulnerability was his couriers. He was too smart to let al-Qaida foot soldiers, or even his senior commanders, know his hideout. But if he wanted to get his messages out, somebody had to carry them, someone bin Laden trusted with his life.
Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, detainees in the CIA’s secret prison network told interrogators about an important courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who was close to bin Laden. After the CIA captured al-Qaida’s No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he confirmed knowing al-Kuwaiti but denied he had anything to do with al-Qaida.
Then in 2004, top al-Qaida operative Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq. Ghul told the CIA that al-Kuwaiti was a courier, someone crucial to the terrorist organization. In particular, Ghul said, the courier was close to Faraj al-Libi, who replaced Mohammed as al-Qaida’s operational commander. It was a key break in the hunt for in bin Laden’s personal courier.
“Hassan Ghul was the linchpin,” a U.S. official said.
Finally, in May 2005, al-Libi was captured. Under CIA interrogation, al-Libi admitted that when he was promoted to succeed Mohammed, he received the word through a courier. But he made up a name for the courier and denied knowing al-Kuwaiti, a denial that was so adamant and unbelievable that the CIA took it as confirmation that he and Mohammed were protecting the courier. It only reinforced the idea that al-Kuwaiti was very important to al-Qaida.
If they could find the man known as al-Kuwaiti, they’d find bin Laden.
The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA’s so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.
“We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day,” said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.
Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.
It took years of work before the CIA identified the courier’s real name: Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a Pakistani man born in Kuwait. When they did identify him, he was nowhere to be found. The CIA’s sources didn’t know where he was hiding. Bin Laden was famously insistent that no phones or computers be used near him, so the eavesdroppers at the National Security Agency kept coming up cold.
Ahmed was identified by detainees as a mid-level operative who helped al-Qaida members and their families find safe havens. But his whereabouts were such a mystery to U.S. intelligence that, according to Guantanamo Bay documents, one detainee said Ahmed was wounded while fleeing U.S. forces during the invasion of Afghanistan and later died in the arms of the detainee.
But in the middle of last year, Ahmed had a telephone conversation with someone being monitored by U.S. intelligence, according to an American official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive operation. Ahmed was located somewhere away from bin Laden’s hideout when he had the discussion, but it was enough to help intelligence officials locate and watch Ahmed.
In August 2010, Ahmed unknowingly led authorities to a compound in the northeast Pakistani town of Abbottabad, where al-Libi had once lived. The walls surrounding the property were as high as 18 feet and topped with barbed wire. Intelligence officials had known about the house for years, but they always suspected that bin Laden would be surrounded by heavily armed security guards. Nobody patrolled the compound in Abbottabad.
In fact, nobody came or went. And no telephone or Internet lines ran from the compound. The CIA soon believed that bin Laden was hiding in plain sight, in a hideout especially built to go unnoticed. But since bin Laden never traveled and nobody could get onto the compound without passing through two security gates, there was no way to be sure.
Despite that uncertainty, intelligence officials realized this could represent the best chance ever to get to bin Laden. They decided not to share the information with anyone, including staunch counterterrorism allies such as Britain, Canada and Australia.
By mid-February, the officials were convinced a “high-value target” was hiding in the compound. President Barack Obama wanted to take action.
“They were confident and their confidence was growing: ‘This is different. This intelligence case is different. What we see in this compound is different than anything we’ve ever seen before,'” John Brennan, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser, said Monday. “I was confident that we had the basis to take action.”
Options were limited. The compound was in a residential neighborhood in a sovereign country. If Obama ordered an airstrike and bin Laden was not in the compound, it would be a huge diplomatic problem. Even if Obama was right, obliterating the compound might make it nearly impossible to confirm bin Laden’s death.
Said Brennan, “The president had to evaluate the strength of that information, and then made what I believe was one of the most gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory.”
Brennan told CNN Tuesday that “there was no single piece of information that was an ‘ah-hah’ moment.” He said officials took “bits and pieces” of intelligence gathered and analyzed over a long period of time to nail down the leads they needed.
Obama tapped two dozen members of the Navy’s elite SEAL Team Six to carry out a raid with surgical accuracy.
Before dawn Monday morning, a pair of helicopters left Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. The choppers entered Pakistani airspace using sophisticated technology intended to evade that country’s radar systems, a U.S. official said.
Officially, it was a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn’t kill unarmed people trying to surrender. But it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering, two U.S. officials said.
The helicopters lowered into the compound, dropping the SEALs behind the walls. No shots were fired, but shortly after the team hit the ground, one of the helicopters came crashing down and rolled onto its side for reasons the government has yet to explain. None of the SEALs was injured, however, and the mission continued uninterrupted.
With the CIA and White House monitoring the situation in real time — presumably by live satellite feed or video carried by the SEALs — the team stormed the compound.
Thanks to sophisticated satellite monitoring, U.S. forces knew they’d likely find bin Laden’s family on the second and third floors of one of the buildings on the property, officials said. The SEALs secured the rest of the property first, then proceeded to the room where bin Laden was hiding. A firefight ensued, Brennan said.
Ahmed and his brother were killed, officials said. Then, the SEALs killed bin Laden with a bullet just above his left eye, blowing off part his skull, another official said. Using the call sign for his visual identification, one of the soldiers communicated that “Geronimo” had been killed in action, according to a U.S. official.
Bin Laden’s body was immediately identifiable, but the U.S. also conducted DNA testing that identified him with near 100 percent certainty, senior administration officials said. Photo analysis by the CIA, confirmation on site by a woman believed to be bin Laden’s wife, who was wounded, and matching physical features such as bin Laden’s height all helped confirm the identification. At the White House, there was no doubt.
“I think the accomplishment that very brave personnel from the United States government were able to realize yesterday is a defining moment in the war against al-Qaida, the war on terrorism, by decapitating the head of the snake known as al-Qaida,” Brennan said.
U.S. forces searched the compound and flew away with documents, hard drives and DVDs that could provide valuable intelligence about al-Qaida, a U.S. official said. The entire operation took about 40 minutes, officials said.
Bin Laden’s body was flown to the USS Carl Vinson in the North Arabian sea, a senior defense official said. There, aboard a U.S. warship, officials conducted a traditional Islamic burial ritual. Bin Laden’s body was washed and placed in a white sheet. He was placed in a weighted bag that, after religious remarks by a military officer, was slipped into the sea about 2 a.m. EDT Monday.
This Monday, May 2, 2011 satellite image provided by GeoEye shows the compound, center, in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden lived. Bin Laden, the face of global terrorism and mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was tracked down and shot to death at the compound by an elite team of U.S. forces, ending an unrelenting manhunt that spanned a frustrating decade.
Terrorist’s burial at sea was done in accordance with Muslim law.
Osama bin Laden, the elusive terror mastermind killed by Navy SEALs in an intense firefight, was hunted down based on information first gleaned years ago from detainees at secret CIA prison sites.
President Barack Obama (2nd L) and Vice President Joe Biden (L), along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission againstOsama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Also pictured are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (2nd R) and Defense Secretary Robert Gates (R). Please note: A classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured at source. REUTERS/White House/Pete Souza/Handout« Read less
In this image released by the White House and digitally altered by the source to diffuse the paper in front of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House
President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama listens during one in a series of meetings discussing the mission against Osama bin Laden, in the Situation Room of the White HouseMay 1, 2011
U.S. President Barack Obama talks with members of the national security team at the conclusion of one in a series of meetings discussing the mission againstOsama bin Laden, in the Situation Room of the White House May 1, 2011. Picture taken May 1, 2011.
The people who gathered Sunday in the Situation Room know all about high-pressure situations. But this was something else. For 40 minutes, the President and his senior aides could do nothing but watch the video screens and listen to the operation and ensuing firefight on the other side of the world. At Barack Obama’s orders, special operations teams were invading the airspace of a foreign country, targeting a compound with unknown occupants, and hoping to get out unscathed. The target was America’s No. 1 enemy, Osama bin Laden. But no one knew for sure if he was even there.
The President sat stone-faced through much of the events. Several of his aides, however, were pacing. For long periods of time, nobody said a thing, as everyone waited for the next update. In the modern age, Presidents can experience their own military actions like a video game, except that they have no control over the events. They cannot, and would not, intervene to contact the commanders running the operation. So when word came that a helicopter had been grounded, a sign that the plan was already off course, the tension increased. (See pictures of Osama bin Laden’s Pakistan hideout.)
Minutes later, more word came over the transom. “We’ve IDed Geronimo,” said a disembodied voice, using the agreed-upon code name for America’s most wanted enemy, Osama bin Laden. Word then came that Geronimo had been killed. Only when the last helicopter lifted off some minutes later did the President know that his forces had sustained no casualties. (See pictures of people celebrating Osama bin Laden’s death.)
The decision to attack had been made days earlier by the President. He gathered his senior intelligence, military and diplomatic team together in the Situation Room on Thursday afternoon to hear his options. There were already concerns about operational security. At that point, hundreds of people had already been read into the potential whereabouts of bin Laden. Any leak would have ruined the entire mission.
The intelligence professionals said they did not know for sure that bin Laden was in the compound. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenarios – the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President’s senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above. (See TIME’s al-Qaeda covers.)
Obama left the meeting without signaling his intent. He wanted to sleep on it. At about 8:00 a.m. on Friday, just before he boarded a helicopter that would take him to tour tornado damage in Alabama, Obama called his senior aides into the Diplomatic Room. He told them his decision: A helicopter assault. At that point, the operation was taken out of his hands. He was trusting the fate of his presidency to luck. He was putting his presidency in the hands of history.
U.S. President Barack Obama talks on the phone in the Oval Office before making a statement to the media about the mission against Osama bin Laden, atthe White House May 1, 2011. The president made a series of calls to former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and others to inform them of the successful mission. Picture taken May 1, 2011.
In this image released by the White House, from left, James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, CIA DirectorLeon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Vice President Joe Biden listen as President Barack Obama delivers a televised speech from the East Room at the White House in Washington on Sunday, May 1, 2011,
In this image released by the White House and digitally altered by the source to diffuse the paper in front of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton,President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, Sunday, May 1, 2011, in Washington
In this image released by the White House, President Barack Obama makes a point during one in a series of meetings in the Situation Room of the White Housediscussing the mission against Osama bin Laden, Sunday, May 1, 2011. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon is pictured at right
______________________________________
A crowd of hundreds celebrated out front of the White House after President Obama announced the death of al Qaeda figurehead Osama bin Laden. Chip Reid reports.
George H.W.Bush’s Gulf War was very successful, nevertheless, it could not lead him to a re-election.
Bill Clinton’s success in 1992 election attempt was brought on in part to the public’s forgetfulness.
The chances of President Obama’s re-election have to improved since the events of yesterday. Last night people were singing in the streets. In fact, I just watched a video clip on the Tolbert Report website showing people shouting “USA,USA” outside the Whitehouse. However, it is my view that 18 months is too long for people to remember. First lets take a look at the typical reaction of the press today which is almost crown him already the winner in 2012. This is especially true of bloggers today. Mike Dorning does a good job of giving a good overview of the latest events.
The long-awaited retribution against al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden for the Sept. 11 attacks likely will strengthen President Barack Obama’s hand in pursuing both his foreign policy and domestic goals.
Six days after the terrorist attacks in 2001, President George W. Bush declared bin Laden was “Wanted: Dead or Alive,” Nearly 10 years later, after the bearded terrorist eluded capture when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and continued to taunt the nation with videotaped statements, Obama last night announced: “Justice has been done.”
Rivals and allies alike offered congratulations to the administration for the U.S. raid that killed bin Laden yesterday in Pakistan.
Bush, Obama’s Republican predecessor, called the mission “a momentous success” and “a victory for America.”
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, one of the Republicans who may run against him next year, included Obama among those deserving credit, offering “congratulations to our intelligence community, our military and the president.”
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, another Republican weighing a presidential bid, also congratulated Obama and the military for ’’a job well done.’’
The timing of bin Laden’s death strengthens Obama’s standing as he begins negotiations with congressional Republicans on a long-term deficit reduction package and on legislation to raise the national debt ceiling. He is scheduled to have a dinner with bipartisan congressional leaders at the White House tonight and Vice President Joe Biden opens budget negotiations on May 5.
Counterweight to Criticism
For Obama — who last week released his birth certificate to quiet critics who questioned his eligibility to be president and who, as a candidate, fended off false rumors that he was a Muslim — his role in ordering the operation and announcing its successful completion now provides a counterweight to criticism of his foreign policy, particularly his use of U.S. power.
Rick Nelson, director of the homeland security and counterterrorism program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the death of bin Laden won’t immediately change the tactical battle against terrorism because, at the time of his death, the al-Qaeda leader wasn’t delivering operational orders to the group’s affiliates.
“Its ultimate significance will be on a strategic-symbolic level,” Nelson said. “It’s incumbent on the Obama administration to seize on this moment, especially amid the popular uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa.”
Something to Celebrate
The killing of the man who had come to embody the global terrorist threat now provides a victory to celebrate for a public soured by a slow economic recovery, high gasoline prices and dissatisfaction with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a CBS/New York Times poll completed April 20, 70 percent of Americans said the country is on the wrong track, the worst reading in more than two years. Perceptions about the country’s direction historically have been among the factors predicting an incumbent president’s re-election prospects.
As news of bin Laden’s death spread, crowds gathered outside the White House and at the “Ground Zero” site of the attack on the World Trade Center in Manhattan to cheer, shout “USA” and wave American flags. Shortly before Obama addressed the nation, the crowd outside the White House began singing “The Star Spangled Banner,” the national anthem.
Matthew Murray, 24, of Arlington, Virginia, stood in front of the White House waving an American flag. Dressed in shorts, sneakers and a t-shirt, Murray said he ran five miles from his home to join the crowd.
‘Spontaneous Outpouring’
“It’s a struggle we’ve spent years working on, and it’s finally over,” Murray said. “I’ve never seen a spontaneous outpouring of joy like this.”
The mood extended to markets. U.S. stock-index futures and Asian shares jumped and crude oil dropped as Obama made the announcement.
Standard & Poor’s 500 Index futures expiring in June climbed 0.6 percent to 1,367.6 at 6:11 a.m. in New York. The benchmark measure of U.S. shares closed last week at the highest level since June 2008. Oil for June delivery was down $2.25 at $111.38 a barrel after declining as much as $3.11 to $110.82 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Obama used his television address to shift the ground to themes of national unity and optimism that were pillars of his 2008 election campaign. He asked the country to “think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11.”
He also said that, while the task of securing the nation against terrorism isn’t finished, “we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to.”
George H.W. Bush prepares to give his Jan. 16, 1991, Oval Office speech announcing the beginning of military action in Iraq (left); and Bill Clinton on the campaign trail in 1992.
The Gulf War that began 20 years ago this past week ended with America’s political class in nearly universal agreement on one point: The Democrats were screwed in 1992.
In the months before the war, as he’d dispatched hundreds of thousands of troops to the Persian Gulf in response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, there had been widespread fear among Americans that President George H.W. Bush was leading them into another Vietnam. But as wars go, Operation Desert Storm proved surprisingly tidy: The verdict was quick and decisive and American casualties were low. It was everything Vietnam hadn’t been, and when Bush declared a cease-fire on Feb. 28, a months-long national celebration ensued, complete with parades, prime-time television specials — and, of course, soaring popularity for the commander in chief, whose leadership was hailed by even his harshest critics.
It was in this climate that Bush, his approval ratings edging over 90 percent in some polls, was branded a shoo-in for reelection in ’92. Sure, he’d gone back on his “no new taxes” pledge the year before, and yes, the economy was clearly in recession, but none of this mattered anymore: Even Harry Truman after the Japanese surrender hadn’t enjoyed Bush’s standing with his fellow countrymen, and it was simply inconceivable that they might turn around and give him the boot 20 months later — especially when almost every Democrat being mentioned as a potential candidate had been against the war. One poll matched Bush against the man widely considered the Democrats’ best bet for ’92, New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, in a trial heat: Bush came out on top … by 62 points.
“Large problems and small bedevil the Democrats,” the Washington Post’s Mary McGrory wrote in mid-March. “They are fairly resigned to the idea that the 1992 presidential election was decided during Operation Desert Storm, and they realize they may not get the sand out of their shoes until Thanksgiving, if then.”
There was one Democrat, though, who was interested in running for president for whom all of this was good news — very good news. Forty-five-year-old Bill Clinton had just been reelected the previous fall to his fifth term as Arkansas’ governor. But his barely concealed national ambitions — he’d walked to the starting line for the 1988 presidential race before backing out and citing family concerns — had been a liability in that campaign, and Clinton had responded by promising Arkansans not to seek the White House if they returned him to the statehouse. By the final days of the race, when it was clear he’d survive, Clinton was already looking for a way to wiggle out of that commitment, but it would be a process. He needed time.
The Gulf War gave him plenty of it. In the previous presidential campaign cycle, Michael Dukakis, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Richard Gephardt, Joe Biden and Bruce Babbitt had all been essentially running full-fledged presidential campaigns by the spring of 1987. But in the spring of 1991, about the only thing to be heard on the Democratic side was crickets. The party’s brightest stars all made it clear that they either weren’t running in ’92, or were in no hurry to decide. They were all intimidated by Bush’s imposing poll numbers, and many of them also wondered if their opposition to what had turned into an immensely popular war would render them unelectable…
Thus, there was room for Clinton to ease his way into the national conversation — to slowly acclimate Arkansans to the idea that he’d go back on his pledge, the better to avoid an embarrassing home state backlash when he finally did jump in. The calculations that were keeping so many big-name Democrats away from the presidential race didn’t really apply to Clinton.
This enabled Clinton get the Democratic Nomination but one of the main reasons he beat President Bush was the Gulf War victory was too far in the past for people to remember.
The Daily Hatch 