Bush repeatedly warned of "imminent" 9/11 attack, neo-cons told him to ignore it

Seriously? We always knew the neocons were a bunch of frauds but it doesn't say much about the rest of the Bush team who fell for their stupidity. NY Times:

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

Read the rest of this post...

Bush isn't going to be happy when he sees these new CIA documents about 9/11

From Jordan Michael Smith at Salon:

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

Read the rest of this post...

For some people, the ongoing (over?) memorializing of September 11 is neither helpful nor healthy

It's like a cross between a sinus headache and a hangover. A thick fuzzy weight of increasing pressure on my forehead. And it happens every time I get dragged into remembering the details of September 11.

I was in Washington, DC when it happened. I got up relatively late, as I always do (being a late night worker) and hadn't even opened my curtains yet when I sat down at the computer and saw that among Yahoo's top stories was something about a small plane hitting the World Trade Center. Then I read about the second plane, and knew we were under attack. That's when I opened my curtains and saw the plume of smoke from the Pentagon streaked across the horizon.

I remember September 11 too well. And I don't need anyone "reminding" me. I get annoyed this time of year, every year, by the media's incessant passion play over the September 11 anniversary. But in all fairness to the media, it's the politicians who think they have to stumble over each other to recognize this "momentous" day - the media is simply following suit.

I don't understand the need to constantly remember something that I had to go to therapy (for the first time in my life) to try to forget. Like a good number of people in DC and NY, and many in the rest of the country, September 11 left me with an unhealthy bout of post-traumatic stress disorder. And for anyone who, like me, was never quite sure if PTSD really existed, I found out a few years later, after I thought I'd been "cured," that it does.

I was sitting in La Coupole, a nice historic bistro in Paris, having dinner with a few friends. Suddenly behind me I heard a loud crash, the waiter had dropped a tray of dishes. Everyone in the restaurant turned to look, but I was the only one to break into tears. It was one of the most surreal experiences of my life. I had no idea why I was crying. All I knew was that I had to get out of there, and I quickly left the table and went outside.

Loud noises still unnerve me a bit more than they should, but thankfully it's been a good six or seven years since I've lost it over a broken plate.  The fuzzy thud in the head still comes back from time to time, like it did this past weekend when I couldn't get away from TV shows, and even people on my parents' block, incessantly "remembering" September 11.

I'm just not sure I get why we have to go through this every year.  We hold far more "remembrances" of September 11th than we do our own departed relatives.  What is the point in going through this ever year?  Is someone honestly afraid we're going to forget this quickly?  I wish.  Do we really dishonor the dead by holding the same number of memorials for them that we hold for our own deceased family members (one after the funeral, one 40 days later, and one a year later - and that's about it).

I wonder whether the national fixation on remembering September 11 isn't a bit like a parent who keeps their child's bedroom intact long after the infant has died.  You understand the sentiment, but you can't help but feel that at a certain point it's a bit unhealthy.

I know that, for me at least, this past weekend didn't help me heal.  And I learned a long time ago that if I'm feeling something, someone else is probably feeling the same way.  I know my reaction to September 11 wasn't healthy, and I got help.  I can't help but wonder whether the country isn't reacting to the September 11 anniversary in an equally unhealthy way.  More from Teddy Partridge at FDL:

Behind us, then, this last and greatest anniversary: perhaps? Without forgetting the victims or disrespecting their loved ones — might it be? Can we now move on? Will it be possible now to dial back the public, national paroxysm of grief to allow private mourning, personal reflection, and public accountability? All of which, I submit, have been obscured by our media and political elites’ co-option of this anniversary.

Everyone mourns differently because everyone’s experience of that day is different. Acknowledging that uniqueness, though, I submit that this weeks-long media celebration (for that’s what it was), the repetition of painful images and recitation of mistakes made and opportunities lost helps no one. I simply do not believe that continued escalation of the public, national, communal nature of this commemoration will help any one individual — or our nation — heal.

Read the rest of this post...

Credible terror threat related to 9/11 anniversary

CNN's Security Clearance blog:

U.S. officials said Thursday evening they have "specific, credible but unconfirmed" information about a threat against the United States coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"We have received credible information very recently about a possible plot directed at the homeland that seems to be focused on New York and Washington, D.C.," a senior administration official told CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr.

The plot is believed to involve three individuals who have possibly entered the United States, at least one believed to be a U.S. citizen, the official said.

U.S. officials believe the threat is a vehicle laden with explosives but "the intelligence picture is not completely formed," the official said. "Not enough is known about the potential operatives and their plotting."

Read the rest of this post...

Texas (of course) school shuns Al Jazeera reporter because of "what they did," presumably on 9/11

Who says Texas isn't a proud member of the South? From Gabriel Elizondo, an Al Jazeera reporter traveling across the US, interviewing people about the ten year anniversary of 9/11. This is what happened when he tried to interview folks at a local high school football game in Texas.

From Al Jazeera:

After the national anthem was over, I approached Mrs. Yauck.

“Hi, my name is Gabriel Elizondo. I am a journalist, I live in Brazil, and I am driving across the country to talk to people about the 10 year anniversary of 9/11. I randomly stopped in here in Booker and I would love to film a little of the football game and maybe see if anybody, like the parents, want to talk to me about their views of 9/11 during halftime.”

Mrs Yauck bounced up from her seat, approaches me warmly, and gives me a wonderful Texas hospitality smile and said something to the effect of “what an interesting project” I was doing.

She was all grins and good cheer. Could not have been nicer, really. I think her brain was still trying to process: Journalist. Brazil. 9/11. But that was understandable, as I am sure it’s not everyday that trifecta comes to Booker.

“So you will need to send me the link of this when it goes on the internet or whatever,” she says.

“Absolutely,” I say.

She said she was out of business cards, so I reached into my back pocket, pulled out my wallet, grabbed by business card, and handed it to Mrs. Yauck.

I don't think anything can wipe that double-wide smile off Mrs Yauck’s face. But my Al Jazeera business card does the job pretty quick.

“So you’re from Al Jazeera,” Mrs Yauck says in a sharp tone, still looking down at my card. Looking up at me, she adds quickly, “ So what’s your spin on this story?”

“I don’t have a spin,” I say, still smiling to try to ease any sudden tension. “What I told you is exactly what I want to do. Just talk to people, film a bit. That is it. Nothing more. Nothing less.”

“But you’re with Al Jazeera?”

“Yes,” I say proudly, still smiling.

But Mrs Yauck is again staring down at my business card.

“Our superintendent is here, let me just go talk to him and I’ll be right back.”

(A superintendent is like a CEO of a school district, the top boss).

I guess ‘my project’ is not quite as interesting anymore to her.

She then leaves, taking my card with her.

I sit down in the bleachers. And wait.

About five minutes later, a man comes walking up to me, alone, and he is clearly the superintendent. He just walks up to me and glares. It’s a sharp glare, like I intentionally backed up over his daughter’s puppy and laughed about it.

Needless to say, he is not smiling.

He doesn’t introduce himself to me, that I recall. But it doesn't take Julian Assange to figure out later he is Michael Lee.

So I tried my best: “So, I guess Mrs Yauck told you who I am. I am a journalist crossing the country doing random stories about the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 and I was hoping to talk to some people here about it at the game, and get some opinions.”

He then said something I could not entirely make out, because his voice sort of quivered from a combination of being obviously furious and nervous at the same time.

But I am pretty sure he said:

“I think it was damn rotten what they did.”

“I am sorry, what who did?” I say, not sure exactly if he was calling me rotten, the terrorists rotten, Al Jazeera rotten, or all of the above.

“The people that did this to us,” he says back to me with a smirk, still glaring uncomfortably straight at my eyes.

“Well, I think it was bad too,” I say. “Well, do you think, sir, we can film a bit of the game and talk to some people here about just that?”

“No. You can’t film, you can’t take pictures, or interview people.”

Read the rest of this post...

AG Holder to investigate 9/11 phone hacking by Murdoch's paper

Murdoch's News Corp has played the 9/11 card harder than anyone so if it turns out that they violated the law they should not be shown an ounce of mercy.

Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday promised 9/11 families a preliminary criminal investigation into a report of possible phone hacking involving the Rupert Murdoch media empire.

Following a meeting at the Justice Department that lasted over an hour, the family members and their lawyer said they were pleased that the attorney general made the commitment for a preliminary probe into whether the Sept. 11 victims or their families were the targets of phone hacking by journalists at Murdoch's now-shuttered News of the World.

The lawyer for the families, Norman Siegel, told reporters that the attorney general had used the words "very disturbing" to describe the possibility that phones of 9/11 victims and their family members might have been hacked. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler confirmed that account of the meeting.

Read the rest of this post...

9/11 families to meet with US Attorney General over News Corp hacking

This story is not going away for the Murdoch family. We need to know a lot more about how Murdoch's media empire acted in the US. The Guardian:

Relatives of victims of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York are to meet with America's top law enforcement official to discuss allegations that journalists working for News Corporation tried to gain access to the phone records of the dead.

The US attorney general Eric Holder has agreed to see a group of family members and their legal representative on 24 August to discuss the progress of an FBI investigation. The agreement to hold the meeting is a sign of how seriously the inquiry is being taken.

Norman Siegel, a New York-based lawyer who represents 20 families who lost loved ones on 11 September 2001, confirmed the meeting and said he intended to take as many of the relatives as possible to see Holder in Washington. "We are hoping the allegations of hacking prove to be untrue but we want a thorough investigation to determine what happened," he said.

In the UK the government is asking questions about the millions of deleted emails and what Rupert Murdoch's News Corp knew about it. Stay tuned. Read the rest of this post...

9/11 Health and Compensation Act won't cover cancer

These are people who risked their lives to help save others during a critical moment. Shouldn't we do more? If the choice is between giveaways for the wealthy (corporate and individuals) or covering all health care for those who sacrificed themselves on 9/11, there should be no debate. CNN:

Some of the New York lawmakers who originally hailed the legislation are now speaking out against the exclusion of cancer.

"As the sponsors of the Zadroga Act, we are disappointed that Dr. Howard has not yet found sufficient evidence to support covering cancers," Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler and Republican Rep. Peter King, who wrote the act, said in a joint statement.

"This is disappointing news for 9/11 responders and survivors who tragically have been diagnosed with cancer since the attacks and are suffering day to day and awaiting help," they said.

"So many people have gotten such rare cancers -- and at such young ages -- that it seems obvious there must be a link," Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer said in a statement.

Read the rest of this post...

British press asks if Murdoch’s newspaper hacked phones of 9/11 victims

Unfortunately the British tabloid press is not the most reliable, but at this point nothing will be too shocking or too low for Murdoch's empire. The Mirror:

Now working as a private ­investigator, the ex-officer claimed reporters wanted the victim’s phone numbers and details of the calls they had made and received in the days leading up to the atrocity.

A source said: “This investigator is used by a lot of journalists in America and he recently told me that he was asked to hack into the 9/11 victims’ private phone data. He said that the journalists asked him to access records showing the calls that had been made to and from the mobile phones belonging to the victims and their ­relatives.

“His presumption was that they wanted the information so they could hack into the ­relevant voicemails, just like it has been shown they have done in the UK. The PI said he had to turn the job down. He knew how insensitive such research would be, and how bad it would look.

Read the rest of this post...

CATO: How Bush lost bin Laden

Malou Innocent at CATO:

Whatever one thinks about Musharraf, my problem lies primarily with Bush. The article explains:

A few months after Tora Bora, as part of the preparation for war in Iraq, the Bush administration pulled out many of the Special Operations and CIA forces that had been searching for bin Laden in Afghanistan, according to several U.S. officials who served at the time.

Even the drones that U.S. forces depended on to track movements of suspicious characters in the Afghan mountain passes were redeployed to be available for the Iraq war, Lt. Gen. John Vines told The Washington Post in 2006. Once, when Vines’s troops believed they were within half an hour of catching up to bin Laden, the general asked for drones to cover three possible escape routes. But only one drone was available — others had been moved to Iraq. The target got away.

That’s right folks! The Bush White House lost whatever opportunity it had to get bin Laden by diverting scarce resources to Iraq. Of course, it should go without saying that even if America hadn’t gone into Iraq, it would’ve been difficult for Bush to have captured or killed bin Laden. But what really “grinds my gears” is to hear members of the Bush team claim credit for bin Laden’s recent demise—torture was “critically important”—while simultaneously ignoring their culpability for not helping to capture bin Laden when they had the chance.

Read the rest of this post...

Pakistan refusing to let US talk to bin Laden's wives

From Slate:

The latest point of contention between the two nations is over access to three of Bin Laden’s wives. The three women were among 10 or so of the al-Qaida leader’s family members taken into custody by Pakistan after the raid that killed Bin Laden.

The U.S. is asking for the chance to interrogate the women, believing they may be able to provide crucial information about “the comings and goings of people who were aiding [Bin Laden],” the New York Times reported Monday. So far, Pakistan has refused, a move that isn't helping quell speculation in Washington that Bin Laden may have had help from within the Pakistani government.

Read the rest of this post...

Just when you thought the GOP couldn't stoop any lower

A reader writes:

Every time you think they could not stoop any lower.

Now the Republicans are complaining about Obama taking a 'victory lap at ground zero.' This is the same party that moved their party convention to New York City so that they could use Ground Zero as a backdrop. And Bush is the guy who put on a military uniform to prance around on an aircraft carrier and declare "mission accomplished" eight years before Bin Laden was nailed.

The reason Obama went to Ground Zero is simple and obvious: He was reminding the world of what OBL did, that he murdered thousands of civilians.

Waiting till the tenth anniversary of 9/11 would not have had the same effect. Going to the Pentagon would have obscured the message that OBL and his followers murdered civilians.

OBL's death does not mean the end of Al Qaeda, but it could lead to their former allies abandoning them. The main sticking point in the negotiations attempting to end the Afghan war is that the US will not accept any Taleban involvement unless they renounce Al Qaeda.

That is rather easier for them to do now that OBL is dead. I note that many people who know better are talking down Zawahiri's role in Al Qaeda, I suspect that is part of a strategy. The Taleban may even be willing to sell out Al Zawahiri (if they are able to) if that will get the US out of the country.

Remember what I always say: Republicans criticize us for what they do. Which has a number of benefits, including: 1) It deflects attention away from what they're doing; 2) It scares us away from ever doing what they're doing, and reaping the same benefits. Read the rest of this post...

Cheney: "War criminal"

Andrew Sullivan's The Dish:

[L]et us be very clear. The war criminal Dick Cheney presided over the worst lapse in national security since Pearl Harbor, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 people. This rank incompetent failed to get bin Laden at Tora Bora, and then dragged the US on false pretenses into a war in Iraq, empowering Iran's dictatorship, and killing another 5,000 more Americans on a wild goose chase. He presided over the deaths of more than 8,000 Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis during his criminally incompetent years in office.

On the other hand, the man who abolished torture as soon as he took office, Barack Obama, captured and killed Osama bin Laden, and captured a massive trove of intelligence, more than two years later. No Americans died in the operation.

What on earth are we debating?

Read the rest of this post...

Al Qaeda confirms bin Laden’s death

AP:

Al-Qaida on Friday confirmed the killing of Osama bin Laden and warned of retaliation, saying Americans' "happiness will turn to sadness."

The statement suggested that Al Qaeda wasn't aware that the US had prepared the body in the traditional Muslim way. Too bad we didn't release some photos of at least the burial at sea. Read the rest of this post...

NYT on the four legged hero of the raid on bin Laden’s compound

The New York Times examined the role of dogs in our military. They're amazing creatures, as so many of us know. And, they've been doing heroic work in war zones:

The identities of all 80 members of the American commando team who thundered into Abbottabad, Pakistan, and killed Osama bin Laden are the subject of intense speculation, but perhaps none more so than the only member with four legs.

Little is known about what may be the nation’s most courageous dog. Even its breed is the subject of great interest, although it was most likely a German shepherd or a Belgian Malinois, military sources say. But its use in the raid reflects the military’s growing dependence on dogs in wars in which improvised explosive devices have caused two-thirds of all casualties. Dogs have proved far better than people or machines at quickly finding bombs.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of United States forces in Afghanistan, said last year that the military needed more dogs. “The capability they bring to the fight cannot be replicated by man or machine,” he said.

The capability they bring to so much of our lives cannot be replicated by man or machine either.

I've tried to explain to Petey, like I tried to explain to his predecessor, Boomer, that some dogs actually work for a living. Not interested:
Read the rest of this post...

Bush won't go to Ground Zero with Obama today because his feelings are hurt. Well our feelings are hurt that Bush lost Osama when he had the chance.

NY Daily News via Steve Benen:

George W. Bush won't be at Ground Zero with President Obama Thursday in part because he feels his team is getting short shrift in the decade-long manhunt for Osama Bin Laden.

"[Bush] viewed this as an Obama victory lap," a highly-placed source told the Daily News Wednesday.

Bush's visit to the rubble after the 9/11 attacks was the emotional high point of his presidency, but associates say the invitation to return with his successor was a non-starter. "He doesn't feel personally snubbed and appreciates the invitation, but Obama's claiming all the credit and a lot of other people deserve some of it," the source added.

If Bush wants to talk about it, then let's talk about it. Let's talk about how much George Bush did to catch bin Laden during the eight years Bush didn't catch bin Laden. Answer: Not so much.

First let's talk about how George Bush dismantled the lead office in charge of catching bin Laden - only 5 months after September 11 - because Bush wanted the bin Laden hunters to help him start a war in Iraq instead. From the Washington Post:

That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.

"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."

Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2002.

They were leading the hunt for bin Laden, less than half a year after September 11, and Bush was already more interested in taking down Saddam Hussein than capturing the man who just murdered 3,000 Americans.

Then there's the time Bush let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora, just two months before he dismantled the lead team in charge of going after bin Laden. You remember Tora Bora. John Kerry mentioned it during the 2004 campaign, and the Bush people made fun of him. They said our commanders on the ground had no idea that bin Laden was at Tora Bora. It turns out, John Kerry was right, Bush lied, our commanders knew, and the Bush administration wouldn't give them the resources they needed to catch the bastard. Newsweek:

[T]he CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. "Bin Laden was never within our grasp."

Berntsen says Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was. "In his book—titled "Jawbreaker"—the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora "was not necessarily just the number of troops."

So, considering the fact that George Bush let bin Laden get away only three months after September 11, and then, two months later, dismantled the lead team going after bin Laden, because Bush was more interested in starting a war of convenience in Iraq, I think President Obama was being pretty generous offering him a chance to show up at Ground Zero with him.

Piqued that Obama won't give him credit.  That's choice.  It's not the first time Obama refused to give Bush credit.  You'll note that Obama never mentions giving Bush credit for letting Osama get away.  He also never gives Bush credit for plunging the country into a massive deficit.  Or credit for plunging the country into a massive recession.  Or credit for plunging the country into two endless wars.  Or passing trillion dollar tax cuts the country can't afford (you'll note that Obama didn't even mention that it was Bush who did this, when Obama gave his famous budget speech recently).  So yes, Bush really isn't getting the credit he deserves.

Bush is right about one thing. He is partly responsible for Obama catching Osama bin Laden. After all, the only reason Obama was able to catch Osama in 2011 is because Bush didn't catch him earlier. Read the rest of this post...

GOP House refusing to pass resolution praising the troops who got bin Laden

Seriously unpatriotic.

House Republicans say they have no plans to follow the Senate in passing a resolution honoring the military mission that killed Osama bin Laden.

The decision by GOP leaders follows new rules they enacted in January scrapping the tradition of congratulatory measures, which they complained clogged up the House floor.

The Senate on Tuesday passed a resolution, 97-0, commending “the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the United States intelligence community for the tremendous commitment, perseverance, professionalism and sacrifice they displayed in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.”

You'd think they could make an exception for the most important military mission in a lifetime. You'd be wrong.

Fortunately for the Republicans, the Democrats won't be accusing them of hating America and enabling terrorists, which is exactly what the Republicans have done on issue for the past ten years.  The GOP would have a campaign ad ready this afternoon. Read the rest of this post...

White House now admits only one bad guy shot a gun in bin Laden house, there was no firefight

A friend of mine just messaged me: "How do you f--- up the PR around KILLING OSAMA BIN LADEN????"

Yesterday I wrote about my concern that the White House story on killing Osama bin Laden kept changing.  First he had a gun, then he didn't, first he grabbed a woman as a human shield, then he didn't. First they shot him twice in the head, then they didn't.

And now we find out that the extended firefight wasn't a firefight at all.  The only shots fired were from a courier at the beginning of the raid.  Osama didn't have a gun like we were told he did.  But now we learn that there was a rifle within reach...

He's the biggest freaking terrorist in the world.  And one of the biggest mass murderers of all time.  You really don't need to scrape for details to justify killing him.

Sigh.

Everyone is happy the man is dead.  No one begrudges the Seals for going in with guns blazing.  God bless for them the amazing job they did.  But what is the deal with the White House's ongoing mistakes with the information surrounding this mission?  Why does it take four days to get the truth from a small group of US troops?  (And what is the truth anymore?  I don't know what to trust now.)  Why is the White House putting out details that are ending up untrue, details they should have had clear from the beginning, such as, was there a firefight or not? Was bin Laden shot twice in the head or not? Did he pull a gun on them or not? Did he grab a woman as a shield or not?

This is being handled in an incredibly amateur way.  It makes the White House look bad.  It makes all of us look bad.  One assumes the part about the dead guy being bin Laden is still true, but the rest of the story?  Who knows at this point.

Biggest f'g story of this administration, and probably since 9/11 itself.  Knock some heads and get it right.

To reiterate what my friend said: How do you f-up the PR around killing Osama bin Laden? Read the rest of this post...

Reuters gets photos of some of the dead at bin Laden's house

Not OBL, it appears, but some of his henchmen.  Reuters is confident they're real.  (I'm not posting them because A) some will find them gross, and B) they belong to Reuters. You can click through safely, the first pics aren't of the dead.) Read the rest of this post...

Increasingly difficult to explain how Pakistan didn't know where bin Laden was

From the Economist:

Nobody reports seeing other visitors, official-looking or otherwise, coming to number 25. A nearby hospital could perhaps have been useful for a man, such as Mr bin Laden, who suffered from kidney disease. Pakistan's main military academy—the country’s Sandhurst or West Point—is only short distance away on foot. Local residents say that police regularly swept the area, roughly once a week, checking residents' IDs and sometimes looking inside homes. It is hard to believe that this house could have escaped scrutiny for long. Most embarrassing for Pakistan's most powerful man, General Ashfaq Kayani, the chief of staff, is that he was just across the field from number 25 just last week, boasting at the military academy that Pakistan had broken the back of terrorism. At the time Mr bin Laden was within shouting distance of the general. That looks increasingly difficult to explain.

Read the rest of this post...