Showing posts with label Osama Bin Laden's Death. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Osama Bin Laden's Death. Show all posts

May 14, 2011

Who Benefits from the Announcement of Osama Bin Laden's Death?

The Death of Bin Laden, the Death of America

"It's going to take us a few years to figure out whether his efforts over the last few decades have been successful," Rick "Ozzie" Nelson, director of counterterrorism and homeland security studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies told the Envoy. "Was he successful in creating an organization that is self-sustaining, or was it only as big as his persona?" Indeed, it will take some time to sort out this question within the enormous federal bureaucracy devoted to national security and the global terrorist threat. - New terrorist threats after bin Laden’s death worry U.S., The Envoy, May 16, 2011

Manufactured intelligence continues to make the case for the perpetual, global war on terror

May 12, 2011

Chuck Baldwin - News outlets all over America have repeatedly announced the government story that Navy SEALS recently killed Al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in a palatial “safe house” in Pakistan. But, of course, government photos of the dead bin Laden will not be released to the public for fear of inciting animosity among bin Laden’s militant Muslim followers–as if the announcement that he had been killed wouldn’t be enough to enrage them! And, furthermore, the body of bin Laden was quickly buried at sea out of “respect” for Muslim tradition that one has a speedy burial. But no mention is made, of course, as to why his body could not have been buried. Were all nearby cemeteries filled? And the question, “Why were the rest of the dead bodies of the other Muslims who were killed in the raid also not buried at sea?” has neither been asked nor answered. The media simply keeps regurgitating the announcement that Navy SEALS killed bin Laden. And, of course, the one thing a burial at sea accomplishes is it circumvents any attempt by independent sources to confirm the true identity of bin Laden via a post burial examination.

Is Osama bin Laden really dead? I don’t think there is any question about it. In fact, bin Laden has been dead for several years. If readers will recall, this is the latest of several announcements by various government spokesmen that Osama bin Laden left the land of the living. As respected researcher Joel Skousen notes in his latest World Affairs Brief, no less than 9 public announcements of bin Laden’s demise have been made spanning the years 2001-2009.

For example, on January 18, 2002, the Pakistani President declared, “I think now, frankly, he [bin Laden] is dead.”

In October 2002, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told CNN, “I would come to believe that [bin Laden] probably is dead.”

In November of 2005, Senator Harry Reid revealed that he was told Osama may have died in October of that year.

In September of 2006, French intelligence leaked a report suggesting Osama had died in Pakistan.

In March of 2009, noted military and intelligence analyst Angelo Codevilla stated, “All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama bin Laden.”

And in May of 2009, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari said, “I’ve said before that he [bin Laden]—I don’t think he’s alive.” He also said the head of US intelligence told him they [the US] hadn’t heard from Osama bin Laden in 7 years so they presumed him dead.”

Skousen also points out the fact that it is unfathomable that bin Laden could have remained alive and hiding out in caves and primitive safe houses for an extended period of time, because it was a well known fact that he suffered from acute kidney disease that required almost daily usage of a dialysis machine (which was NOT present in the home where the US government claimed he was shot). US intelligence personnel surely knew that bin Laden was treated at the American Hospital in Dubai in July of 2001 by Dr. Terry Callaway, and that CIA station chief Larry Mitchell met bin Laden in the hospital during the time he was admitted. In fact, French television and the Agence France Presse reported that bin Laden was hospitalized between July 4th and 14th of that year.

See Joel Skousen’s web site at: http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/

I certainly do not doubt that Navy SEALS killed someone during that raid. In all likelihood, it was a bin Laden look-alike who had outlived his usefulness. The official story of the raid has changed so many times and has so many holes in it, it is an embarrassment to the US national press corps that they have carried the story “as is” in such a careless and unprofessional manner. But, then again, the national press corps has been little more than a national propaganda machine for the federal government for decades, anyway. So, why should this story be any different?

At this point, I encourage readers to check out the following report that chronicles some of the more obvious discrepancies and laughable explanations of the government’s official story (or more appropriately, stories): http://tinyurl.com/446qt5g

So, the obvious question that needs to be asked is,

“What is to be gained by the announcement of this raid in which Osama bin Laden was supposedly killed?”

For one thing, this is going to make it extremely difficult for Republicans to beat President Barack Obama in the 2012 elections. Immediately following the raid’s announcement, Obama’s approval rating soared by almost 25 percentage points. And with an extremely weak GOP Presidential field (believe it or not, Republican Congressman Ron Paul actually fares better head-to-head against Obama than any other Republican candidate–but the Powers That Be (PTB) within the propaganda media and the GOP establishment will do everything in their power to prevent Paul from gaining the nomination), the “bin Laden factor” makes Obama almost unbeatable. As Skousen astutely asked, how many terrorists have Gingrich, Palin, or Huckabee killed?

However, the thing that benefits the most from this raid is America’s emerging police state, which is now strategically positioned to take another giant leap forward.

With bin Laden now declared “dead,” the US government will have to find another excuse to continue the “War On Terrorism.” Will US forces now pull out of Afghanistan? Not on your life! Literally! US forces are permanently embedded in the Middle East. They are never coming home. In fact, the US 2nd Marine Division is on alert for an insertion into Libya, and US attacks against Syria are soon to follow.

All the PTB need now is another 9/11-style attack, and the architects that are drawing up plans for America becoming a Gestapo-style police state will be free to launch their evil machinations almost at will. And revenge for the death of bin Laden will be the reason provided to the American public that will convince them to accept this next round of attacks against the Bill of Rights and America’s liberties.

While Americans are rejoicing over the death of Osama bin Laden, they need to be infuriated at the death of America, because that is what this so-called “War on Terror” is accomplishing.

P.S. For the month of May, I am making three of my most popular video messages available at a special package price: “What Every Christian Should Know About The New World Order,” “There Is A Conspiracy,” and “The Biblical Standard Of Government.” During the month of May, these three video messages may be purchased for the price of two.That’s like buying two and getting one free. To take advantage of this special offer, go to: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3468

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

Mainstream Media Reports:

May 7, 2011

Bin Laden's Death Will Drive Feds to Build an Ever-larger Surveillance State

Even if you are a completely honest person and think you have nothing to hide, think again. There are over 10,000 recorded laws in the US. Most honest people probably violate the law on a regular basis whether they know it or not. Cell phones contain more private information about you and your activities than just about anything else -- they keep track of where you are at all times, everyone you call or text, email, social networking, photos, videos, personal files and much more. If the police have access to such huge amounts of data about you, it can reveal violations of obscure, bureaucratic laws that you have never heard of. Or, that data could provide circumstantial evidence wrongly implicating you in crimes you had nothing to do with. That is assuming that no police officer will make improper use of the data. If you have read a single article on CopBlock, you know that abuse is very possible. - Police Search Cell Phones on a Massive Scale: Violation Of Anyone's Rights Is A Threat To Everyone's Rights, How to Vanish, May 7, 2011

We’re living in an era of artificial, fully staged, media-generated events. Why was Bin Laden’s death announced on the evening of May 1st? Because it was the required sacrifice of the “most magical time of the year”, which was launched with the Royal Wedding. May 1st, or May Day, was considered by several cultures to be an important holiday, especially in occult circles due to celestial alignments. In Illuminati lore, it is regarded as the second most important day of the year. In fact, the Order of the Bavarian Illuminati was founded on May 1st 1776... In 2011, Bin Laden’s usefulness to the Agenda has ran its course. Furthermore, the Obama administration needed an exploit to boost its poll ratings until the next elections. Consequently, in a classic combination of occult rituals with pragmatic politics, the death of Bin Laden was announced on May 1st 2011 with triumph and jubilation. Through CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX, millions of viewers rejoiced at the death of man in the same matter ancient peasants rejoiced at the offering of human sacrifices to Baal. In a dumbed-down, politicized and “Illuminati-sed” version of the Beltane Festival, the masses have celebrated the ritual sacrifice of a man and, without even realizing it, partook in one of the Illuminati’s most important holidays. - Why the Death of the Man Who Was Not Behind 9/11 Was Announced on May 1st, Vigilant Citizen, May 2, 2011



In Wake of Bin Laden Raid, Senator Schumer Proposes 'No-ride List' for Amtrak Trains

Intel gathered in bin Laden raid points to potential threat

May 8, 2011

Reuters - A senator on Sunday called for a "no-ride list" for Amtrak trains after intelligence gleaned from the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound pointed to potential attacks on the nation's train system.

Sen. Charles Schumer said he would push as well for added funding for rail security and commuter and passenger train track inspections and more monitoring of stations nationwide.
"Circumstances demand we make adjustments by increasing funding to enhance rail safety and monitoring on commuter rail transit and screening who gets on Amtrak passenger trains, so that we can provide a greater level of security to the public," the New York Democrat said at a news conference.
U.S. officials last week said evidence found after the raid on bin Laden's compound in Pakistan indicated the al-Qaida leader or his associates had engaged in discussions or planning for a possible attack on a train inside the United States on September 11, 2011.

Schumer, citing U.S. intelligence analysts, said attacks were also considered on Christmas and New Year's Day and following the president's State of the Union address. He called on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to expand the Secure Flight monitoring program, which cross-checks air travelers with the terror watch list in an attempt to prevent anyone on the "no-fly list" from boarding, for use on Amtrak.

Such a procedure would create an Amtrak "no-ride list" to keep suspected terrorists off the U.S. rail system, he said.

The September 11 Commission recommended in 2004 that the government check travelers' names against terror watch lists before they board passenger trains or cruise ships, but such a program was not adopted.

Schumer noted that rail and port security grant funding was cut by $50 million under last month's federal budget compromise, but he said developments warrant reconsideration and increased rail safety funding.

Bin Laden's Greatest Legacy: The Surveillance State

May 3, 2011

Balkinization - Even if Al Qaeda is ultimately defeated, the fear of terrorism--and the political opportunity that the fear of terrorism presents-- have driven western governments, and especially the United States, to build ever larger surveillance states, justifying ever greater government expenditures and ever greater expansion of surveillance bureaucracies.

Currently there is an energetic debate over whether Bin Laden's capture and execution was facilitated by the Bush Administration's torture policies. This debate overlooks a far larger concern: how the hunt for Al Qaeda justified the government's permanent expansion of surveillance capabilities. President Obama ordered an end to the use of torture techniques as soon as he took office, but he has not ordered an end to the use of these surveillance capacities; indeed, he has expanded them. Government surveillance programs are only likely to grow over the years, and they are likely to affect many more people-- including American citizens-- for a much longer time than the Bush Administration's embrace of torture ever did.

The September 11th attacks did not cause the construction of the national surveillance state, but they spurred on its growth enormously. Indeed, the national surveillance state may be Osama Bin Laden's most powerful and lasting legacy; for even after he and all of his allies are gone, the surveillance state will affect how Americans live and how their government operates for decades to come. Bin Laden was not able to destroy us. But he might have been a precipitating cause in the destruction, or at least the limitation, of important freedoms. If it is true, as politicians repeatedly tell us, that Bin Laden hated us for our freedoms, that would be a terrible victory indeed.

All of this should give us pause. I think it is by now settled that America, like many other nations will build out a surveillance state. The question is what kind of state it will build out. Bin Laden's death will mean many things to many people. I suggest that it should offer us an strategic opportunity to stop for a moment, and to rethink our energetic dash to build out the most powerful and least constrained surveillance operations that government money can buy. That is because the challenge we face today is *not* to build the most effective surveillance state possible. It is to make effective surveillance and democracy live together.

Bin Laden Death Sparks New Talk Over Patriot Act

May 6, 2011

The Associated Press — Freshman Republican Randy Hultgren had no problem voting against extending the Patriot Act in February. But the death of Osama bin Laden, just weeks before part of the terrorist-fighting law expires, raises new questions for the Illinois congressman.

"It hasn't changed my mind, not yet," Hultgren said this week. "I want to see that we're doing it in a careful way, that we're seeing results from it."

There's no indication that the mission to take out bin Laden relied on the Patriot Act, which was designed after the Sept. 11 attacks to find terrorists inside the U.S. But the afterglow of the operation's success shined new light on the nature of the terrorist threat nearly a decade after the attacks bin Laden inspired.

Interviews with House and Senate experts on the law, from both parties, indicate this week's developments may have marginalized any effort to tighten the Patriot Act's protections and perhaps scuttled Senate plans to hold a full week of debate on the bill.

From its inception, the law's increased surveillance powers have been criticized by both liberals and conservatives as infringements on free speech rights and protections against unwarranted searches and seizures.

Some Patriot Act opponents suggest that bin Laden's demise should prompt Congress to reconsider the law, written when the terrorist leader was at the peak of his power. But the act's supporters warn that al-Qaida splinter groups, scattered from Pakistan to the United States and beyond, may try to retaliate.

"Now more than ever, we need access to the crucial authorities in the Patriot Act," Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If bin Laden's death has any impact on the law's fate,

"I hope...it'll be in the direction of extending the current law," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. "Most of us believe it's been an effective tool in the war on terror."

The provisions that expire May 27 allow the government to use roving wiretaps on multiple electronic devices and across multiple carriers and get court-approved access to business records relevant to terrorist investigations. The third, a "lone wolf" provision that was part of a 2004 law, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. individuals without having to show a connection between the target and a specific terrorist group.

The Senate Judiciary Committee in March approved a bill that would extend the provisions until 2013, tighten its civil liberties protections and increase oversight. But there's evidence that bin Laden's death may have marginalized any such effort to do more than extend the law, as is. A Senate official not authorized to speak for the record said it wasn't clear that there would be a full week of floor debate on the Patriot Act as Majority Leader Harry Reid had indicated.

The law's fate, for now, resides in the Republican-controlled House and the odd pairing of GOP libertarians and Democratic liberals who have long viewed the Patriot Act as an oppressive overreach.

The new Republican majority in February underestimated the mistrust of the Patriot Act and tried to renew it for 10 months under rules that required a two-thirds supermajority. It failed. Instead, the Senate proposed a three-month extension, and House GOP leaders succeeded in passing it with a simple majority, 279-143.

Of the 'no' votes against the three-month extension, 26 came from Republicans. GOP leaders now are looking to a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee next Wednesday to test whether a straight extension, or one with changes, could draw votes from Democrats, too.

That has left the Senate's Patriot Act experts cooling their heels as they wait for the House to write a bill that might pass. On ice is a bill written by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Approved by his committee in March with bipartisan support, it would impose tighter standards on the government's access to library and other records and require more oversight of agencies that operate under the law.

Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has called for a clean extension through 2013. Several Republicans have proposed just making the expiring provisions permanent.

But as the magnitude of the bin Laden operation sank in, questions arose in the Senate as well as the House.

Freshman Sen. Mike Lee, the Utah Republican whose tea party backing helped him defeat incumbent Sen. Bob Bennett in a primary, was the sole Republican to vote for Leahy's bill to tighten the Patriot Act's civil liberties protections and beef up its oversight requirements.

But this week, Lee couldn't say whether he'd vote for it on the floor. He also did not rule out voting for a straight extension.

Leahy's bill "would do a better job of protecting civil liberties and privacy than current law," Lee said in a statement. But, he said, "I will need to see how the final reform package shapes up."

May 6, 2011

The Cost of Bin Laden: $3 Trillion Over 15 Years

The Cost of bin Laden: $3 Trillion Over 15 Years

May 6, 2011

National Journal - The most expensive public enemy in American history died Sunday from two bullets.

As we mark Osama bin Laden's death, what's striking is how much he cost our nation—and how little we've gained from our fight against him. By conservative estimates, bin Laden cost the United States at least $3 trillion over the past 15 years, counting the disruptions he wrought on the domestic economy, the wars and heightened security triggered by the terrorist attacks he engineered, and the direct efforts to hunt him down.

What do we have to show for that tab? Two wars that continue to occupy 150,000 troops and tie up a quarter of our defense budget; a bloated homeland-security apparatus that has at times pushed the bounds of civil liberty; soaring oil prices partially attributable to the global war on bin Laden's terrorist network; and a chunk of our mounting national debt, which threatens to hobble the economy unless lawmakers compromise on an unprecedented deficit-reduction deal.

All of that has not given us, at least not yet, anything close to the social or economic advancements produced by the battles against America's costliest past enemies. Defeating the Confederate army brought the end of slavery and a wave of standardization—in railroad gauges and shoe sizes, for example—that paved the way for a truly national economy. Vanquishing Adolf Hitler ended the Great Depression and ushered in a period of booming prosperity and hegemony. Even the massive military escalation that marked the Cold War standoff against Joseph Stalin and his Russian successors produced landmark technological breakthroughs that revolutionized the economy.

Perhaps the biggest economic silver lining from our bin Laden spending, if there is one, is the accelerated development of unmanned aircraft. That's our $3 trillion windfall, so far: Predator drones. "We have spent a huge amount of money which has not had much effect on the strengthening of our military, and has had a very weak impact on our economy," says Linda Bilmes, a lecturer at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government who coauthored a book on the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

(TIMELINE: Obama's big secret. When he knew about bin Laden (and we didn't)

Certainly, in the course of the fight against bin Laden, the United States escaped another truly catastrophic attack on our soil. Al-Qaida, though not destroyed, has been badly hobbled. "We proved that we value our security enough to incur some pretty substantial economic costs en route to protecting it," says Michael O'Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution [think tank of the global elite].

But that willingness may have given bin Laden exactly what he wanted. While the terrorist leader began his war against the United States believing it to be a "paper tiger" that would not fight, by 2004 he had already shifted his strategic aims, explicitly comparing the U.S. fight to the Afghan incursion that helped bankrupt the Soviet Union during the Cold War. "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy," bin Laden said in a taped statement. Only the smallest sign of al-Qaida would "make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations." Considering that we've spent one-fifth of a year's gross domestic product—more than the entire 2008 budget of the United States government—responding to his 2001 attacks, he may have been onto something.

THE SCORECARD

Other enemies throughout history have extracted higher gross costs, in blood and in treasure, from the United States. The Civil War and World War II produced higher casualties and consumed larger shares of our economic output. As an economic burden, the Civil War was America's worst cataclysm relative to the size of the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates that the Union and Confederate armies combined to spend $80 million, in today's dollars, fighting each other. That number might seem low, but economic historians who study the war say the total financial cost was exponentially higher: more like $280 billion in today's dollars when you factor in disruptions to trade and capital flows, along with the killing of 3 to 4 percent of the population.

The war "cost about double the gross national product of the United States in 1860," says John Majewski, who chairs the history department at the University of California (Santa Barbara). "From that perspective, the war on terror isn't going to compare."

On the other hand, these earlier conflicts — for all their human cost — also furnished major benefits to the U.S. economy. After entering the Civil War as a loose collection of regional economies, America emerged with the foundation for truly national commerce; the first standardized railroad system sprouted from coast to coast, carrying goods across the union; and textile mills began migrating from the Northeast to the South in search of cheaper labor, including former slaves who had joined the workforce. The fighting itself sped up the mechanization of American agriculture: As farmers flocked to the battlefield, the workers left behind adopted new technologies to keep harvests rolling in with less labor.

(UPDATED: New pictures from bin Laden's Pakistani hideout)

World War II defense spending cost $4.4 trillion. At its peak, it sucked up nearly 40 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Research Service. It was an unprecedented national mobilization, says Chris Hellman, a defense budget analyst at the National Priorities Project. One in 10 Americans—some 12 million people—donned a uniform during the war.

But the payoff was immense. The war machine that revved up to defeat Germany and Japan powered the U.S. out of the Great Depression and into an unparalleled stretch of postwar growth. Jet engines and nuclear power spread into everyday lives. A new global economic order—forged at Bretton Woods, N.H., by the Allies in the waning days of the war—opened a floodgate of benefits through international trade. Returning soldiers dramatically improved the nation's skills and education level, thanks to the GI Bill, and they produced a baby boom that would vastly expand the workforce.

U.S. military spending totaled nearly $19 trillion throughout the four-plus decades of Cold War that ensued, as the nation escalated an arms race with the Soviet Union. Such a huge infusion of cash for weapons research spilled over to revolutionize civilian life, yielding quantum leaps in supercomputing and satellite technology, not to mention the advent of the Internet.

Unlike any of those conflicts, the wars we are fighting today were kick-started by a single man. While it is hard to imagine World War II without Hitler, that conflict pitted nations against each other. (Anyway, much of the cost to the United States came from the war in the Pacific.) And it's absurd to pin the Civil War, World War I, or the Cold War on any single individual. Bin Laden's mystique (and his place on the FBI's most-wanted list) made him—and the wars he drew us into—unique.

By any measure, bin Laden inflicted a steep toll on America. His 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa caused Washington to quadruple spending on diplomatic security worldwide the following year—and to expand it from $172 million to $2.2 billion over the next decade. The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole caused $250 million in damages.

(FALLOUT: U.S. Pakistani relations strained like never before)

Al-Qaida's assault against the United States on September 11, 2001, was the highest-priced disaster in U.S. history. Economists estimate that the combined attacks cost the economy $50 billion to $100 billion in lost activity and growth, or about 0.5 percent to 1 percent of GDP, and caused about $25 billion in property damage. The stock market plunged and was still down nearly 13 percentage points a year later, although it has more than made up the value since.

The greater expense we can attribute to bin Laden comes from policymakers' response to 9/11. The invasion of Afghanistan was clearly a reaction to al-Qaida's attacks. It is unlikely that the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 had not ushered in a debate about Islamic extremism and weapons of mass destruction. Those two wars grew into a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign that cost $1.4 trillion in the past decade—and will cost hundreds of billions more. The government borrowed the money for those wars, adding hundreds of billions in interest charges to the U.S. debt.

Spending on Iraq and Afghanistan peaked at 4.8 percent of GDP in 2008, nowhere near the level of economic mobilization in some past conflicts but still more than the entire federal deficit that year.

"It's a much more verdant, prosperous, peaceful world than it was 60 years ago," and nations spend proportionally far less on their militaries today, says S. Brock Blomberg, a professor at Claremont McKenna College in California who specializes in the economics of terrorism. "So as bad as bin Laden is, he's not nearly as bad as Hitler, Mussolini, [and] the rest of them."

Yet bin Laden produced a ripple effect. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have created a world in which even non-war-related defense spending has grown by 50 percent since 2001. As the U.S. military adopted counterinsurgency doctrine to fight guerrilla wars, it also continued to increase its ability to fight conventional battles, boosting spending for weapons from national-missile defense and fighter jets to tanks and long-range bombers. Then there were large spending increases following the overhaul of America's intelligence agencies and homeland-security programs. Those transformations cost at least another $1 trillion, if not more, budget analysts say, though the exact cost is still unknown. Because much of that spending is classified or spread among agencies with multiple missions, a breakdown is nearly impossible.

It's similarly difficult to assess the opportunity cost of the post-9/11 wars—the kinds of productive investments of fiscal and human resources that we might have made had we not been focused on combating terrorism through counterinsurgency. Blomberg says that the response to the attacks has essentially wiped out the "peace dividend" that the United States began to reap when the Cold War ended. After a decade of buying fewer guns and more butter, we suddenly ramped up our gun spending again, with borrowed money.

The price of the war-fighting and security responses to bin Laden account for more than 15 percent of the national debt incurred in the last decade—a debt that is changing the way our military leaders perceive risk.

"Our national debt is our biggest national-security threat," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters last June.

All of those costs, totaled together, reach at least $3 trillion. And that's just the cautious estimate. Stiglitz and Bilmes believe that the Iraq conflict alone cost that much. They peg the total economic costs of both wars at $4 trillion to $6 trillion, Bilmes says. That includes fallout from the sharp increase in oil prices since 2003, which is largely attributable to growing demand from developing countries and current unrest in the Middle East but was also spurred in some part by the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Bilmes and Stiglitz also count part of the 2008 financial crisis among the costs, theorizing that oil price hikes injected liquidity in global economies battling slowdowns in growth—and that helped push up housing prices and contributed to the bubble.

Most important, the fight against bin Laden has not produced the benefits that accompanied previous conflicts. The military escalation of the past 10 years did not stimulate the economy as the war effort did in the 1940s—with the exception of a few large defense contractors—in large part because today's operations spend far less on soldiers and far more on fuel. Meanwhile, our national-security spending no longer drives innovation. The experts who spoke with National Journal could name only a few advancements spawned by the fight against bin Laden, including Predator drones and improved backup systems to protect information technology from a terrorist attack or other disaster.

"The spin-off effects of military technology were demonstrably more apparent in the '40s and '50s and '60s," says Gordon Adams, a national-security expert at American Univeristy.

Another reason that so little economic benefit has come from this war is that it has produced less—not more—stability around the world. Stable countries, with functioning markets governed by the rule of law, make better trading partners; it's easier to start a business, or tap national resources, or develop new products in times of tranquility than in times of strife.

"If you can successfully pursue a military campaign and bring stability at the end of it, there is an economic benefit," says economic historian Joshua Goldstein of the University of Massachusetts. "If we stabilized Libya, that would have an economic benefit."

Even the psychological boost from bin Laden's death seems muted by historical standards. Imagine the emancipation of the slaves. Victory over the Axis powers gave Americans a sense of euphoria and limitless possibility. O'Hanlon says,

"I take no great satisfaction in his death because I'm still amazed at the devastation and how high a burden he placed on us." It is "more like a relief than a joy that I feel." Majewski adds, "Even in a conflict like the Civil War or World War II, there's a sense of tragedy but of triumph, too. But the war on terror … it's hard to see what we get out of it, technologically or institutionally."

BIN LADEN'S LEGACY

What we are left with, after bin Laden, is a lingering bill that was exacerbated by decisions made in a decade-long campaign against him. We borrowed money to finance the war on terrorism rather than diverting other national-security funding or raising taxes. We expanded combat operations to Iraq before stabilizing Afghanistan, which in turn led to the recent reescalation of the American commitment there. We tolerated an unsupervised national-security apparatus, allowing it to grow so inefficient that, as The Washington Post reported in a major investigation last year, 1,271 different government institutions are charged with counterterrorism missions (51 alone track terrorism financing), which produce some 50,000 intelligence reports each year, many of which are simply not read.

We have also shelled out billions of dollars in reconstruction funding and walking-around money for soldiers, with little idea of whether it has even helped foreigners, much less the United States; independent investigations suggest as much as $23 billion is unaccounted for in Iraq alone.

"We can't account for where any of it goes—that's the great tragedy in all of this," Hellman says. "The Pentagon cannot now and has never passed an audit—and, to me, that's just criminal."

It's worth repeating that the actual cost of bin Laden's September 11 attacks was between $50 billion and $100 billion. That number could have been higher, says Adam Rose, coordinator for economics at the University of Southern California's National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, but for the resilience of the U.S. economy and the quick response of policymakers to inject liquidity and stimulate consumer spending. But the cost could also have been much lower, he says, if consumers hadn't paid a fear premium—shying away from air travel and tourism in the aftermath of the attacks. "Ironically," he says, "we as Americans had more to do with the bottom-line outcome than the terrorist attack itself, on both the positive side and the negative side."

The same is true of the nation's decision, for so many reasons, to spend at least $3 trillion responding to bin Laden's attacks. More than actual security, we bought a sense of action in the face of what felt like an existential threat. We staved off another attack on domestic soil. Our debt load was creeping up already, thanks to the early waves stages of baby-boomer retirements, but we also hastened a fiscal mess that has begun, in time, to fulfill bin Laden's vision of a bankrupt America. If left unchecked, our current rate of deficit spending would add $9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. That's three Osamas, right there.

Although Bin Laden is buried in the sea, other Islamist extremists are already vying to take his place. In time, new enemies, foreign and domestic, will rise to challenge America.

Al Qaeda and Osama's Wife Confirm Bin Laden's Death; Pakistani Interrogators, Speaking on Condition of Anonymity, Give More Details

Despite the fact that Obama announced last Sunday on live television that the world was now “safer” because Bin Laden was dead, his administration, with the aid of the fearmongering mass media, instantly seized upon the situation to terrify Americans into being afraid of imminent “reprisal” terror attacks inside the United States, later claiming that Bin Laden had formulated an “aspirational rather than operational” plan to derail US trains that travel over 500mph, although no trains in the US can actually travel at such speeds. This led “terror experts” to salivate over how TSA agents were now needed in shopping malls to stick their hands down Americans’ pants, while New York Senator Chuckie Schumer called for the no fly list to be expanded to trains and subways. Obama hurried to ground zero for a photo op as he desperately tried to use the Bin Laden hoax to whip up phony patriotism as a means of boosting his flagging poll numbers. Others, like Democrat Bill Richardson, exploited the situation to try and push through policies that had no connection to Bin Laden or terrorism at all, like cap and trade. The haste with which the whole Bin Laden fable was exploited for political points scoring, and as a psychological ploy to return Americans to a post-9/11 state of intellectual castration, was painfully transparent, clearly suggesting that the entire farce was planned well in advance to achieve precisely those goals in the run up to 2012. - Paul Joseph Watson, 10 Facts That Prove The Bin Laden Fable Is a Contrived Hoax, Infowars.com, May 9, 2011

Osama Bin Laden's Wife Says They Didn't Leave Pakistani Compound Once in Five Years

May 5, 2011

NY Daily News - Osama Bin Laden's wife revealed she did not leave their luxury lair for five years, Pakistani investigators confirmed to reporters on Thursday.

Amal al-Sadah, 29, was the youngest wife of the Al Qaeda leader, and was shot in the leg during the raid when she reportedly rushed towards the Navy SEALs invading the compound. She told her captors that Bin Laden was still conscious when she was shot, and that her 12-year-old daughter told her he had been shot to death, according to the BBC.

Now in custody of the Pakistani military along with the other survivors of the raid, al-Sadah has provided key details that illuminate the terrorist's secret life while hiding from the U.S. government.

The U.S. is reportedly in a tense back-and-forth with Pakistan over the opportunity to question al-Sadah.

According to some reports, al-Sadah told investigators she did not leave a single room in the five years they lived in the compound, while other questioning has revealed Bin Laden split his time between only two different rooms, including the one in which he was killed.

"He used two rooms on one of the floors," Asad Munir, a former Pakistani intelligence officer, told ABC News. "He never went anywhere."

Al Qaeda Confirms bin Laden Death

May 6, 2011

The Envoy - One notable group won't be counted in the skeptic's camp: al Qaeda.

The terrorist group's general command sent a defiant statement to jihadi on-line forums Tuesday--the same day Obama announced his decision not to release the photos--confirming that bin Laden is dead, and calling for its supporters to take revenge.
Bin Laden's blood "will be a curse that will chase the Americans and their agents, a curse that will pursue them inside and outside their country, and soon--with God's help--we pray that their happiness turns into sorrow and may their bloods mix with their tears," the group vows.
The statement was released and translated from the Arabic by the SITE intelligence group, which monitors online radical forums. The AP has posted a video on the statement to YouTube:

Excerpts of the translated statement, posted by CNN, are below:

"Congratulations to the Islamic Nation on the martyrdom of their devoted son Osama,

"Even when the Americans managed to kill Osama, they managed to do ONLY that by disgrace and betrayal. Men and heroes only should be confronted in the battlefields but at the end, that's God's fate. Still we ask, will the Americans be able through their media outlets, their agents, their instruments, soldiers, intelligence services and their might be able to kill what Sheikh Osama lived for and was killed for? How far! How impossible! Sheikh Osama didn't build an organization that will vanish with his death or fades away with his departure.

"In this context, we in al Qaeda Jihad organization promise God Almighty and we ask Him for help, support and steadfastness to continue on the path of jihad that our leaders, led by Sheikh Osama chose, and that we will not be reluctant, and will not deviate from that honorable path until God be the final judge between us and our enemy.

"We also stress that the blood of the mujahid sheikh Osama bin Laden, may God have mercy on him is VERY dear to us and more precious to us and to every Muslim from being shed in vain and this blood (OBL's blood) will be a curse that will chase the Americans and their agents, a curse that will pursue them inside and outside their country, and soon — with God's help — we pray that their happiness turns into sorrow and may their bloods mix with their tears and let Sheikh Osama's resonate again that "America will neither enjoy nor live in security until our people in Palestine live it and enjoy it. ...

"We call upon our Muslim people in Pakistan where our dear Sheikh Osama was killed on their soil to rise up and revolt so they can cleanse this disgrace that was brought upon them by a handful of traitors and thieves who have sold everything to the enemies of the Muslim nation, and disregarded the feelings of this great Muajhid (Pakistani) people and let them rise up and start a massive public uprising to cleanse their country (Pakistan) from the filth of the Americans who have wreaked havoc in the land". ...

The al Qaeda general command also tells its supporters that it has one more message for them, the SITE group relates.

Bin Laden's Wife Spent 5 Years in Pakistani House

May 6, 2011

AP – One of three wives living with Osama bin Laden told Pakistani interrogators she had been staying in the al-Qaida chief's hideout for five years, and could be a key source of information about how he avoided capture for so long, a Pakistani intelligence official said Friday.

In its first confirmation of bin Laden's death, al-Qaida warned of retaliation in an Internet statement, saying Americans' "happiness will turn to sadness."

Bin Laden's wife, identified as Yemeni-born Amal Ahmed Abdullfattah, said she never left the upper floors of the house the entire time she was there.

She and bin Laden's other two wives are being interrogated in Pakistan after they were taken into custody following Monday's American raid on bin Laden's compound in the town of Abbottabad. Pakistani authorities are also holding eight or nine children who were found there after the U.S. commandos left.

Given shifting and incomplete accounts from U.S. officials about what happened during the raid, testimony from bin Laden's wives may be significant in unveiling details about the operation.

Their accounts could also help show how bin Laden spent his time and managed to stay hidden, living in a large house close to a military academy in a garrison town, a two-and-a-half hours' drive from the capital, Islamabad.

The Pakistani official said CIA officers had not been given access to the women in custody. Already tense military and intelligence relations between the United States and Pakistan have been further strained after the helicopter-borne raid, which many Pakistanis see as a violation of their country's sovereignty.

The proximity of bin Laden's hideout to the military garrison and the Pakistani capital has also raised suspicions in Washington that bin Laden may have been protected by Pakistani security forces while on the run.

Risking more tensions, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed 15 people, including foreign militants, in North Waziristan, an al-Qaida and Taliban hotspot close to Afghanistan, Pakistani officials said. Such attacks were routine last year, but their frequency has dropped this year amid opposition by the Pakistani security establishment.

Pakistan's army, a key U.S. ally in the Afghanistan war, on Thursday threatened to review cooperation with Washington if it stages anymore attacks like the one that killed bin Laden.

The Pakistani intelligence official did not say Friday whether the Yemeni wife has said that bin Laden was also living there since 2006.

"We are still getting information from them," he said.

Another security official said the wife was shot in the leg during the operation and did not witness her husband being killed. He also said one of bin Laden's eldest daughters had said she witnessed the Americans killing her father.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to give their names to the media.

Meanwhile, Pakistan's intelligence agency has concluded that bin Laden was "cash strapped" in his final days, according to a briefing given by two senior military officials. Disputes over money between the terror leader and his No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, led al-Qaida to split into two factions five or six years ago, with the larger faction controlled by al-Zawahri, they said.

The officers spoke to a small group of Pakistani reporters late Thursday. Their comments were confirmed for The Associated Press by the same security official who spoke about the shooting of bin Laden's wife and who was present at Thursday's briefing.

The officer didn't provide details or elaborate on how his agency made the conclusions about bin Laden's financial situation or the split with his deputy, al-Zawahri. The al-Qaida chief apparently had lived without any guards at the Abbottabad compound or loyalists nearby to take up arms in his defense.

The image of Pakistan's intelligence agency has been battered at home and abroad in the wake of the raid that killed bin Laden. Portraying him as isolated and weak could be aimed at trying to create an impression that a failure to spot him was not so important.

Documents taken from the house by American commandos showed that bin Laden was planning to hit America, however, including a plan for derailing an American train on the upcoming 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The confiscated materials reveal the rail attack was planned as of February 2010.

Late Thursday, two Pakistani officials cited bin Laden's wives and children as saying he and his associates had not offered any "significant resistance" when the American commandos entered the compound, in part because the assailants had thrown "stun bombs" that disorientated them.

One official said Pakistani authorities found an AK-47 and a pistol in the house belonging to those inside, with evidence that one bullet had been fired from the rifle.

"That was the level of resistance" they put up, said the official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.

His account is roughly consistent with the most recent one given by U.S. officials, who now say only one of the five people killed in the raid was armed and fired any shots, a striking departure from the intense and prolonged firefight described earlier by the White House and others in the administration.

U.S. officials say four men were killed alongside bin Laden, including one of his sons.

Reflecting the anger in Pakistan, hundreds of members of radical Islamic parties protested Friday in several Pakistan cities against the American raid and in favor of bin Laden. Many of the people chanted "Osama is alive" and blasted the U.S. for violating the country's sovereignty. The largest rally took place in the town of Khuchlak in southwestern Baluchistan province, where about 500 people attended.

"America is celebrating Osama bin Laden's killing, but it will be a temporary celebration," said Abdullah Sittar Chishti, a member of the Jamiat Ulema Islam party who attended the rally in Khuchlak. "After the martyrdom of Osama, billions, trillions of Osamas will be born."

May 5, 2011

The Agendas Behind the Bin Laden News Event

The Agendas Behind the bin Laden News Event

May 5, 2011

Paul Craig Roberts - The US government’s bin Laden story was so poorly crafted that it did not last 48 hours before being fundamentally altered. Indeed, the new story put out on Tuesday by White House press secretary Jay Carney bears little resemblance to the original Sunday evening story. The fierce firefight did not occur. Osama bin Laden did not hide behind a woman. Indeed, bin Laden, Carney said, “was not armed.”

The firefight story was instantly suspicious as not a single SEAL got a scratch, despite being up against al Qaeda, described by former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld as “the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.”

Every original story detail has been changed. It wasn’t bin Laden’s wife who was murdered by the Navy SEALs, but the wife of an aide. It wasn’t bin Laden’s son, Khalid, who was murdered by the Navy SEALs, but son Hamza.

Carney blamed the changed story on “the fog of war.” But there was no firefight, so where did the “fog of war” come from?

The White House has also had to abandon the story that President Obama and his national security team watched tensely as events unfolded in real time (despite the White House having released photos of the team watching tensely), with the operation conveyed into the White House by cameras on the SEALs helmets. If Obama was watching the event as it happened, he would have noticed, one would hope, that there was no firefight and, thus, would not have told the public that bin Laden was killed in a firefight. Another reason the story had to be abandoned is that if the event was captured on video, every news service in the world would be asking for the video, but if the event was orchestrated theater, there would be no video.

No explanation has been provided for why an unarmed bin Laden, in the absence of a firefight, was murdered by the SEALs with a shot to the head. For those who believe the government’s story that “we got bin Laden,” the operation can only appear as the most botched operation in history. What kind of incompetence does it require to senselessly and needlessly kill the most valuable intelligence asset on the planet?

According to the US government, the terrorist movements of the world operated through bin Laden, “the mastermind.” Thanks to a trigger-happy stupid SEAL, a bullet destroyed the most valuable terrorist information on the planet. Perhaps the SEAL was thinking that he could put a notch on his gun and brag for the rest of his life about being the macho tough guy who killed Osama bin Laden, the most dangerous man on the planet, who outwitted the US and its European and Israeli allies and inflicted humiliation on the “world’s only superpower” on 9/11.

When such a foundational story as the demise of bin Laden cannot last 48 hours without acknowledged “discrepancies” that require fundamental alternations to the story, there are grounds for suspicion in addition to the suspicions arising from the absence of a dead body, from the absence of any evidence that bin Laden was killed in the raid or that a raid even took place. The entire episode could just be another event like the August 4, 1964, Gulf of Tonkin event that never happened but succeeded in launching open warfare against North Vietnam at a huge cost to Americans and Vietnamese and enormous profits to the military/security complex.

There is no doubt that the US is sufficiently incompetent to have needlessly killed bin Laden instead of capturing him. But who can believe that the US would quickly dispose of the evidence that bin Laden had been terminated? The government’s story is not believable that the government dumped the proof of its success into the ocean, but has some photos that might be released, someday.

As one reader put it in an email to me:

“What is really alarming is the increasingly arrogant sloppiness of these lies, as though the government has become so profoundly confident of their ability to deceive people that they make virtually no effort to even appear credible.”

Governments have known from the beginning of time that they can always deceive citizens and subjects by playing the patriot card. “Remember the Maine,” the “Gulf of Tonkin,” “weapons of mass destruction,” “the Reichstag fire” – the staged events and bogus evidence are endless. If Americans knew any history, they would not be so gullible.

The real question before us is: What agenda or agendas is the “death of bin Laden” designed to further?

There are many answers to this question. Many have noticed that Obama was facing re-election with poor approval ratings. Is anyone surprised that the New York Times/CBS Poll finds a strong rise in Obama’s poll numbers after the bin Laden raid? As the New York Times reported,

“The glow of national pride” rose “above partisan politics, as support for the president rose significantly among both Republicans and independents.
In all, 57 percent said they now approved of the president’s job performance, up from 46 percent.”

In Washington-think, a 24% rise in approval rating justifies a staged event.

Another possibility is that Obama realized that the the budget deficit and the dollar’s rescue from collapse require the end of the expensive Afghan war and occupation and spillover war into Pakistan. As the purpose of the war was to get bin Laden, success in this objective allows the US to withdraw without loss of face, thus making it possible to reduce the US budget deficit by several hundred billion dollars annually – an easy way to have a major spending cut.

If this is the agenda, then more power to it. However, if this was Obama’s agenda, the military/security complex has quickly moved against it. CIA director Leon Panetta opened the door to false flag attacks to keep the war going by declaring that al Qaeda would avenge bin Laden’s killing. Secretary of State Clinton declared that success in killing bin Laden justified more war and more success. Homeland Security declared that the killing of bin Laden would motivate “homegrown violent extremists” into making terrorist attacks. “Homegrown violent extremists” is an undefined term, but this newly created bogyman seems to include environmentalists and war protesters. Like “suspect,” the term will include anyone the government wants to pick up.

Various parts of the government quickly seized on the success in killing bin Laden to defend and advance their own agendas, such as torture. Americans were told that bin Laden was found as a result of information gleaned from torturing detainees held in Eastern European CIA secret prisons years ago.

This listing of possible agendas and add-on agendas is far from complete, but for those capable of skepticism and independent thought, it can serve as a starting point. The agendas behind the theater will reveal themselves as time goes on. All you have to do is to pay attention and to realize that most of what you hear from the mainstream media is designed to advance the agendas.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.



President Obama was watching on a TV screen as a commando gunned down Osama bin Laden. Via a video camera fixed to the helmet of a U.S. Navy Seal, the leader of the free world saw the terror chief shot in the left eye.
The Seal then carried out what is known in the military as a ‘double tap’ – shooting him again, probably in the chest, to make certain he was dead. The footage of the battle in Bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout – which played out like an episode of 24 – is said to show one of his wives acting as a human shield to protect him as he blasted away with an AK47 assault rifle. She died, along with three other men, including one of Bin Laden’s sons. Within hours, the Al Qaeda leader’s body was buried at sea...Despite President Obama claiming the master terrorist’s death made the world a ‘safer, better place’, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency declared that terrorists would ‘almost certainly’ respond. - Obama watched Bin Laden die on live video as shoot-out beamed to White House, Daily Mail, May 3, 2011


Osama bin Laden Dead: Blackout During Raid on bin Laden Compound

The head of the CIA admitted yesterday that there was no live video footage of the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound as further doubts emerged about the US version of events.

May 5, 2011

Telegraph - Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.

A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.

In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said:

"Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn't know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

"We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound."

Mr Panetta also told the network that the US Navy Seals made the final decision to kill bin Laden rather than the president. He said:

"The authority here was to kill bin Laden. And obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him.

"To be frank, I don't think he had a lot of time to say anything. It was a firefight going up that compound. And by the time they got to the third floor and found bin Laden, I think it -- this was all split-second action on the part of the Seals."

The President only knew the mission was successful after the Navy Seals commander heard the word “Geronimo” on the radio, a code word from commandos reporting that they had killed bin Laden.

The absence of footage of the raid has led to conflicting reports about what happened in the compound. According to Pakistani authorities, one of bin Laden’s daughter’s, who was present during the raid, claimed that her father was captured alive before he was killed.

There was also growing doubt about the US claims that Pakistan’s intelligence agencies involved in the raid.

Lieutenant General Asad Durrani, former head of the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service, said it was "inconceivable" that his government was unaware of the US raid on Osama bin Laden's compound. He claimed his country was forced to deny any knowledge of the raid to avoid a domestic backlash. The ISI's official line has been that bin Laden's compound had "slipped off our radar" after it raided the building in 2003 while hunting for another senior al-Qaeda operative. The agency claims it was unaware that bin Laden was hiding there.

Lieutenant General Durrani, however, said that the denial was a "political" maneuver by the intelligence services to avoid claims that they were working too closely with the US. He said:

"It is more likely that they did know [about the raid]. It is not conceivable that it was done without the involvement of Pakistani security forces at some stage. They were involved and they were told they were in position.

"The army chief was in his office, the cordons had been thrown around that particular place. The Pakistani helicopters were also in the air so that indicates that it was involved.

"[There are] political implications back home. If you say that you are involved there is a large, vocal faction of Pakistani society that will get very upset because we are carrying out repeatedly these operations with the Americans."

Staged: White House “Situation Room” Photos Part of Bin Laden Fable (Excerpt)

May 5, 2011

Infowars.com - ...It has also emerged that the images of Barack Obama that appeared on Monday morning’s newspapers after he had announced the death of Bin Laden the previous night were also completely staged.

“While the photo that ran on many newspapers and websites the next morning appeared as if it were taken during Obama’s address to the nation the night before, it was actually the result of an elaborate post-speech production,” reports the International Business Times.

“As President Obama continued his nine-minute address in front of just one main network camera, the photographers were held outside the room by staff and asked to remain completely silent,” Reuters photographer Jason Reed explained in his blog.

“Once Obama was off the air, we were escorted in front of that teleprompter and the President then re-enacted the walk-out and first 30 seconds of the statement for us.”

The staging of the Obama speech photo is embarrassing, but the staging of the situation room photos, which were heavily promoted by the establishment media, falsely presented as evidence that Obama, Biden and Clinton saw the assassination of Osama live, and used by the White House to lend credence to the fairytale they were busily scripting, are damning.

We truly have entered the “theater of the absurd” when, even as the narrative of the Bin Laden fable crashes and burns, the establishment media that helped manufacture this work of fiction are still claiming that anyone who even questions the blaring inconsistencies of the official account are merely conspiracy theorists engaging in “black helicopter fantasies”.

Pakistani Foreign Ministry Says It Told the CIA About Abbottabad Compound in 2009

Pakistan: We Told CIA About Compound in '09

May 5, 2011

The Daily Beast - The Pakistani Foreign Ministry says it told U.S. intelligence two years ago of suspicions about the compound in Abbottabad where bin Laden was found.
  • Did Pakistan’s spy agency alert the CIA two years ago that there was something suspicious about the compound where Osama bin Laden was tracked down and killed?

  • Was it intelligence from the Pakistan government that finally led the U.S. to bin Laden?

Those were the claims of the Pakistani government today, fighting back against accusations that it ignored evidence of the presence of bin Laden and his family—apparently for years—in a large home only a stone’s throw from the military academy that is Pakistan’s equivalent of West Point.

Gallery: Osama’s Abbottabad Mansion

In a statement released to The Daily Beast by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, the government said that it had been sharing specific intelligence with the CIA about the compound since 2009 and that Abbottabad, the northern Pakistani city when bin Laden was found, has been “under sharp focus of intelligence agencies since 2003” because of reports of the presence of al Qaeda fighters.

“The fact is that this particular location was pointed out by our intelligence quite some time ago to the U.S. intelligence,” the Pakistani Foreign Secretary said.

“The intelligence flow indicating some foreigners in the surroundings of Abbottabad continued until mid-April 2011,” the statement said. “It is important to highlight that taking advantage of much superior technological assets, CIA exploited the intelligence leads given by us to identify and reach Osama bin Laden.”

A CIA spokeswoman said she was aware of the Pakistani statement but had no immediate comment on it. A White House spokeswoman also had no comment. But U.S. government officials have long expressed skepticism about many of their Pakistani counterparts’ claims of their cooperation in aiding America’s efforts against al Qaeda.

The Foreign Ministry statement was released as the Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Salman Bashir, told the BBC that he was distressed by comments by CIA Director Leon Panetta that Pakistan could not be trusted with advance information about the U.S. attack that resulted in bin Laden’s death.

He said that the Pakistani ISI, the country’s powerful military intelligence agency, had identified the Abbottabad complex as suspicious long ago—and urged the U.S. to use its sophisticated electronic monitoring talents to determine who was inside.

“The fact is that this particular location was pointed out by our intelligence quite some time ago to the U.S. intelligence,” he said, noting that the U.S. had “much more sophisticated equipment to evaluate and to assess” what was going on in the sprawling compound where bin Laden was eventually killed.

He said it was unfair to suggest that Pakistan would look the other way at bin Laden’s presence, given his government’s central role in apprehending so many other senior al Qaeda members within Pakistan’s borders, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington.

“Most of these things that have happened in terms of combating global terror, Pakistan has played a pivotal role,” he said.

In its statement, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry suggested that it was not surprising that the bin Laden compound drew little attention from others in the neighborhood, noting that in the high-security area around Abbottabad and the Pakistani military academy, many houses have “high boundary walls, in line with their culture of privacy and security—houses with such layout and structural details are not a rarity.”

Despite American suspicions that some leaders of the Pakistani military must have known and approved of granting sanctuary to bin Laden, a former senior U.S. intelligence official tells The Daily Beast that it seems highly unlikely that bin Laden’s presence was known by more than a few people, if only because no one attempted to claim the State Department’s $10 million reward for bin Laden’s head—a reward that had been widely publicized in the Pakistan media.

“You’d have thought that over all these years, someone would drop a dime on him,” the official said. “That’s a lot of money for a single phone call or email. It’s surprising that there wasn’t a money-hungry general somewhere who wanted that money. Actually, it’s amazing.”

Pakistan Warns America Not to Stage Any More Raids

May 5, 2011

AP - ...Pakistani claims that it did not know anything about the raid until it was too late to stop it. He said the army scrambled two F-16 fighter jets when it was aware that foreign helicopters were hovering over the city of Abbottabad, not far from the capital Islamabad, but they apparently did not get to the choppers on time.

American officials have said they didn't inform Pakistan in advance, fearing bin Laden could be tipped off.

Elements of Pakistan's army and Inter-Services Intelligence agency have long been suspected of maintaining links to Islamist militants, mostly for use as proxies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While the country has worked with the United States to arrest many al-Qaida operatives since 2001, suspicion lingers it is playing a double game.

The leaders of Britain and France, as well as U.S. officials, have said Pakistan has questions to answer over bin Laden's location in a large house close to an army academy in a garrison town.

Bashir said it was "absolutely wrong" to blame the ISI.

"After all there was information within the U.S. system about those who were ultimately, eventually responsible for the 9/11 (attacks), so it's not for me to say that the U.S. government or the CIA failed to prevent that," he said.

While some U.S. lawmakers have taken a tough line, President Barack Obama and other American officials have been more cautious, realizing that downgrading or severing ties with the country would be risky.

Bashir said perceptions that Pakistan's ties with Washington were at rock bottom were untrue.

"We acknowledge the United States is an important friend," he said. "Basically Pakistan and U.S. relations are moving in the right direction."

EU spokesman Michael Mann said Thursday "there can be no doubt" Pakistan would remain an important partner in the region even amid the allegations.

Source: Only 1 Killed in bin Laden Raid was Armed

May 5, 2011

AP – Only one of the five people killed in the raid that got Osama bin Laden was armed and fired a shot, a senior defense official said Thursday, acknowledging the new account differs greatly from original administration portrayals of a chaotic, intense and prolonged firefight.

The sole shooter in the al-Qaida leader's Pakistani compound was quickly killed in the early minutes of the commando operation, details that have become clearer now that the Navy SEAL assault team has been debriefed, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.

He said the raid should be described as a precision, floor-by-floor operation to hunt and find the al-Qaida leader and his protectors, rather than as it has been portrayed by a succession of Obama administration briefers since bin Laden's death was announced Sunday night.

As the Navy SEALs moved into bin Laden's compound, they were fired on by bin Laden's courier, who was in the guesthouse, the official said. The SEALs returned fire, and the courier was killed, along with a woman with him. The official said she was hit in the crossfire.

The Americans were never fired on again as they encountered and killed a man on the first floor and then bin Laden's son on a staircase, before arriving at bin Laden's room. Officials have said bin Laden was killed after he appeared to be lunging for a weapon.

White House and Defense Department and CIA officials through the week have offered varying and foggy versions of the operation, though the dominant focus was on a firefight that officials said consumed most of the 40-minute assault.

"There were many other people who were armed ... in the compound," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday when asked if bin Laden was armed. "There was a firefight."

"We expected a great deal of resistance and were met with a great deal of resistance," he said.

"For most of the period there, there was a firefight," a senior defense official told Pentagon reporters in a briefing Monday.

And though officials later revised these words, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan originally said even bin Laden, too, took part in the shootout. Later the administration said bin Laden wasn't armed.

NBC News, which was first to report that four of the five people killed were unarmed, said the majority of the operation was spent gathering up the compound's computers, hard drives, cell phones and other items that could provide valuable intelligence on al-Qaida and potential operations worldwide.

Those materials have been taken to the FBI lab at the Marine Corps base at Quantico, Va., the defense official said Thursday.

White House Struggles to Get Story Right on Raid

May 3, 2011

AP – Killing Osama bin Laden was a big victory for the U.S., but how exactly the raid went down is another story — and another, and another.

Over two days, the White House has offered contradictory versions of events, including misidentifying which of bin Laden's sons was killed and wrongly saying bin Laden's wife died in gunfire, as it tries to sort through what the president's press secretary called the "fog of combat" and produce an accurate account.

Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that officials were trying to get information out as quickly as possible about the complex event witnessed by just a handful of people, and the story line was being corrected.

"We provided a great deal of information with great haste in order to inform you. ... And obviously some of the information was, came in piece by piece and is being reviewed and updated and elaborated on," Carney said.

The contradictions and misstatements reflect the fact that even in the case of a highly successful and popular mission, the confusion inherent in a fast-paced, unpredictable military raid conducted under intense pressure in a foreign country does not lend itself immediately to a tidy story line, some experts said.

"People are demanding the equivalent of a movie, they want to know scene by scene the most trivial details. You're in the middle of a combat operation," said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"One of the things we all have to be careful about is the idea that you can suddenly rush to transparency and understanding in a matter of minutes or hours on the first day of an event like this."

The circumstances for the Navy SEALs involved hardly lent themselves to careful note-taking. One of their helicopters stalled even before they rushed bin Laden's compound, entering different rooms from different angles, not knowing who they'd find and then, according to the White House, engaging in a firefight. Some of what happened during those 40 minutes in Abbottabad, Pakistan, may never be known.

Nevertheless, the contradictory statements seem certain to raise suspicions about the White House's version of events, given that no independent account from another source is likely to emerge. The only non-U.S. witnesses to survive the raid are in Pakistani custody.

Some of the White House contradictions and corrections that have emerged so far:

  • White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan told reporters Monday that bin Laden's son Khalid was killed in the raid. When the White House released a transcript of Brennan's briefing, it substituted the name of a different son, Hamza. The White House said that was a transcription error.
  • Brennan said bin Laden's wife died while shielding the terrorist leader from U.S. gunfire. Carney said Tuesday that the wife hadn't died and was merely shot in the leg, although another woman did die. But it wasn't clear that either of them was trying to shield bin Laden.
  • Brennan and other officials suggested that bin Laden was holding a gun and even firing at U.S. forces. Carney said Tuesday that bin Laden was unarmed.
  • Officials have offered varying accounts of how President Barack Obama and his team in the White House Situation Room were able to monitor the raid. Without providing details on the technology involved, Brennan said that "we were able to monitor in a real-time basis the progress of the operation from its commencement to its time on target to the extraction of the remains and to then the egress off of the target."

CIA Director Leon Panetta told PBS on Tuesday that,

"Once those teams went into the compound, I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes that we really didn't know just exactly what was going on."

  • The night of the raid, administration officials held a telephone briefing for reporters. "During the raid, we lost one helicopter due to mechanical failure," one of the administration officials said. Later in the same call, another official contradicted that: "We didn't say it was mechanical."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, clarified Tuesday that the explanation was more technical:

The air temperature in the compound was hotter than expected and the helicopter was too heavy to stay aloft under that condition.

Bin Laden's Neighbors Noticed Unusual Things

May 3, 2011

AP – When a woman involved in a polio vaccine drive turned up at Osama bin Laden's hideaway, she remarked to the men behind the high walls about the expensive SUVs parked inside. The men took the vaccine, apparently to administer to the 23 children at the compound, and told her to go away.

The terror chief and his family kept well hidden behind thick walls in this northwestern hill town they shared with thousands of Pakistani soldiers. But glimpses of their life are emerging — along with deep skepticism that authorities didn't know they were there.

Although the house is large, it was unclear how three dozen people could have lived there with any degree of comfort.

Neighbors said they knew little about those inside in the compound but bin Laden apparently depended on two men who would routinely emerge to run errands or to a neighborhood gathering, such as a funeral. There were conflicting details about the men's identities. Several people said they were known as Tariq and Arshad Khan and had identified themselves as cousins from elsewhere in northwestern Pakistan. Others gave different names and believed they were brothers.

Arshad was the oldest, and both spoke multiple languages, including Pashto and Urdu, which are common here, residents said.

As Navy SEALs swept through the compound early Monday, they handcuffed those they encountered with plastic zip ties and pressed on in pursuit of bin Laden. After killing the terror leader, his son and two others, they doubled back to move nine women and 23 children away from the compound, according to U.S. officials.

Those survivors of the raid are now "in safe hands and being looked after in accordance to the law," the Pakistani government said in a statement. "As per policy, they will be handed over to their countries of origin." It did not elaborate.

Also unclear was why bin Laden chose Abbottabad, though at least two other top al-Qaida leaders have sheltered in this town. The bustling streets are dotted with buildings left over from British colonial days. These days it attracts some tourists, but is known mostly as a garrison town wealthier than many others in Pakistan.

Bin Laden found it safe enough to stay for up to six years, according to U.S. officials, a stunning length of time to remain in one place right under the noses of a U.S.-funded army that had ostensibly been trying to track him down. Most intelligence assessments believed him to be along the Afghan-Pakistan border, perhaps in a cave.

Construction of the three-story house began about seven years ago, locals said. People initially were curious about the heavily fortified compound — which had walls as high as 18 feet topped with barbed wire — but over time they just grew to believe the family inside was deeply religious and conservative.

The Pakistani government also pushed back at suggestions that security forces were sheltering bin Laden or failed to spot suspicious signs.

"It needs to be appreciated that many houses (in the northwest) have high boundary walls, in line with their culture of privacy and security," the government said. "Houses with such layout and structural details are not a rarity."

The house has been described as a mansion, even a luxury one, but from the outside it is nothing special. Bin Laden may have well have been able to take in a view of the hills from secluded spots in the garden, though.

The walls are stained with mold, trees are in the garden and the windows are hidden. U.S. officials said the house had no Internet or phone connection to reduce the risk of electronic surveillance. They also said residents burned their trash to avoid collection.

Those who live nearby said the people in bin Laden's compound rarely strayed outside. Most were unaware that foreigners — bin Laden and his family are Arabs — were living there.

Khurshid Bibi, in her 70s, said one man living in the compound had given her a lift to the market in the rain. She said her grandchildren played with the kids in the house and that the adults there gave them rabbits as a gift.

But the occupants also attracted criticism.

"People were skeptical in this neighborhood about this place and these guys. They used to gossip, say they were smugglers or drug dealers. People would complain that even with such a big house they didn't invite the poor or distribute charity," said Mashood Khan, a 45-year-old farmer.

Questions persisted about how authorities could not have known who was living in the compound, especially since it was close to a prestigious military academy.

As in other Pakistani towns, hotels in Abbottabad are supposed to report the presence of foreigners to the police, as are estate agents. Abbottabad police chief Mohammed Naeem said the police followed the procedures but "human error cannot be avoided."

Reporters were allowed to get as far as the walls of the compound for the first time, but the doors were sealed

By early Wednesday, roads leading to the compound had once again been sealed off, this time with even tighter security.

Neighbors earlier showed off small parts of what appeared to be a U.S. helicopter that malfunctioned and was disabled by the American strike team as it retreated. A small servant's room outside the perimeter showed signs of violent entry and a brisk search. Clothes and bedding had been tossed aside. A wall clock was on the floor, the time stuck at 2:20.

Abbottabad has so far been spared the terrorist bombings that have scarred much of Pakistan over the last four years.

Like many Pakistani towns where the army has a strong presence, Abbottabad is well-manicured, and has solid infrastructure. Street signs tell residents to "Love Pakistan." The city also is known for its good schools, including some that were originally established by Christian missionaries.

Little girls wear veils while carrying Hannah Montana backpacks to school. Many houses in the outlying areas have modern amenities, but lie along streets covered with trash. Shepherds herd their flock of sheep along dusty roads just a few hundred yards from modern banks.

Al-Qaida's No. 3, Abu Faraj al-Libi, lived in the town before his arrest in 2005 elsewhere in northwest Pakistan, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials. Earlier this year, Indonesian terror suspect Umar Patek was nabbed at a house in the town following the arrest of an al-Qaida courier who worked at the post office. It is not clear whether Patek had any links with bin Laden.

Western officials have long regarded Pakistani security forces with suspicion, chiefly over their links to militants fighting in Afghanistan. Last year, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton caused anger in Pakistan when she said she found it "hard to believe" that no one in Islamabad knows where the al-Qaida leaders are hiding and couldn't get them "if they really wanted to."

But al-Qaida has been responsible for scores of bloody attacks inside Pakistan, including on its army and civilian leaders. Critics of Pakistan have speculated that a possible motivation for Pakistan to have kept bin Laden on the run — rather than arresting or killing him — would be to ensure a constant flow of U.S. aid and weapons into the country.

Suspicions were also aired in Pakistani media and on the street Tuesday.

"That house was obviously a suspicious one," said Jahangir Khan, who was buying a newspaper in Abbottabad. "Either it was a complete failure of our intelligence agencies or they were involved in this affair."