Government Employees Died, Then Obama Lied

It is now evident that the Obama administration lied about what happened in Benghazi. They insisted that it was a spontaneous and unscripted riot prompted by an obscure anti-Muslim video. They stuck with that narrative despite the fact that evidence was building that it was a planned attack designed maximize embarrassment and destruction on a day that is sacred to many Americans. We now know that the attacks were planned by Al Qaeda.

You didn't have to be an intelligence officer to discover that. If regular citizens with no access to intelligence agencies know that we were attacked and the President is telling the American people something else, its lying. Prior to this revelation by American intelligence agencies, Mark Steyn made the case for how the Obama was willfully turning a blind eye to the evidence of a terrorist attack: 

As I say, I’m inclined to be generous, and put some of this down to the natural torpor and ineptitude of government. But Hillary Clinton and General Martin Dempsey are guilty of something worse, in the secretary of state’s weirdly obsessive remarks about an obscure film supposedly disrespectful of Mohammed and the chairman of the joint chiefs’ telephone call to a private citizen asking him if he could please ease up on the old Islamophobia.

Forget the free-speech arguments. In this case, as Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey well know, the film has even less to do with anything than did the Danish cartoons or the schoolteacher’s teddy bear or any of the other innumerable grievances of Islam. The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: That’s not a spontaneous movie protest; that’s an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower’s response to it. Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.

As the old saying goes, If you repeat a lie often enough, people will take it as truth." The Obama Administration was trying to get the American people to accept their lie as the truth despite the clear evidence that this was an attack on the U.S. Consulate because it would be a clear admission that Obama's foreign policy is a complete failure: 

"The attacks on US embassies and consulates in the Arab world can not be justified in any way. If it turns out that al-Qaida is behind the attacks, as some US officials suspect, then they are acts of terrorism committed under the guise of religion. If they turn out to be uncoordinated actions by angry believers, then they are an expression of a frightening ignorance. A crazy individual US citizen has uploaded a movie onto the Internet which denigrates the Prophet Muhammad. The US government can not be held responsible for that. But that clearly does not help US President Barack Obama very much. He has to bear the political consequences of the recent events by himself."

"Four years ago, Obama pledged to seek reconciliation with the Muslim world. Now, it is doubtful whether he has succeeded. The US and its European allies now have to ask themselves how much support they still enjoy in the countries of the Arab Spring."

Obama must be held accountable for his policy of leading from behind in world affairs and how it has been a utter failure. The fact that the Obama Administration has openly and brazenly lied to the American people cannot be tolerated either. The best way to hold him accountable is to give him the pink slip on November 6, 2012.

Mitt Romney Chastizes Ron Paul For His Stance On Iran

In the final days before the Iowa caucus, Mitt Romney went after Ron Paul and criticized him for his position on Iran:

Mitt Romney, beginning a final push in this crucial first-caucus state, this morning took a swipe at Representative Ron Paul, who has been gaining momentum among Iowa voters.

“One of the people running for president thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” Romney told voters here at Elly’s Tea and Coffee Shop, where a line stretched to the door to see him. “I don’t, I don’t trust ayatollahs ... I don’t trust those who back Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Ron Paul denies that his policies are isolationist and chooses to call his foreign policy positions "non-interventionist: 

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.

It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.
- Dr. Ron Paul, 2007

Ron Paul's foreign policy positions are neither conservative, pragmatic or sane. He has the same foreign policy positions as President Obama. Some people think he is further to the left than Obama.Ron Paul's foreign policy. Regardless of what Ron Paul chooses to call his foreign policy positions, it is isolationist in theory and in application. 

In fact, a former Ron Paul aide, named Eric Dondero, has this to say about his old boss' foreign policy positions: 

First, Dondero claims that his old boss is such an extreme isolationist that "he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that 'saving the Jews,' was absolutely none of our business."

Second, Dondero writes that that Paul himself is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist: 

He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

And lastly, Dondero reveals that Paul wanted to vote against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 but lacked the courage of his convictions to do so: 

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:
Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

Eric Dondero also claims that Ron Paul is Anti-Israel and Pro-Hamas and Hezbollah: 

He is . . . most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general.  He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all.  He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations.  His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer.  He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs. . . .

While the quote above is bad, you should click on the link above to learn more about Ron Paul's support for Palestine and how it reveals his hypocrisy for his non-interventionism/isolationism foreign policy positions. 

In contrast,  Mitt Romney will not lead from behind like President Obama nor will he withdraw from the world stage like Ron Paul. He is a man whose foreign policy positions will keep America and the world safer. He is a strong leader who has the integrity and wisdom to stand up for our nation and to support our friends and allies around the world. 

That is why Iowans and the rest of the country should vote for Mitt Romney in this 2012 Republican primary.

Why Conservatives Cannot Support Ron Paul In 2012

The worst candidate of this 2012 election is Ron Paul. He cannot be allowed to win the Iowa caucus or any primary election in this election. Let me explain why.

Ron Paul's foreign policy positions are neither conservative, pragmatic or sane. He has the same foreign policy positions as President Obama. Some people think he is further left than Obama. However, at least Obama leads from behind on foreign policy whereas Ron Paul, with his isolationist positions, won't lead at all. 

Since he won't be even be leading from behind, Ron Paul won't protect America. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair explains how isolationism is essentially a choice to do nothing and how it weakens a nation and makes the world a more dangerous place:

In the Middle East, where our strategic interests are dramatically and profoundly engaged, it is unlikely that the effect of a regime going rogue and brutalizing its own people will remain isolated within its own borders.

If Moammar Gadhafi were allowed to kill large numbers of Libyans to quash the hope of a different Libya, we could end up with a pariah government at odds with the international community—wounded but still alive and dangerous. We would send a signal of Western impotence in a region that analyzes such signals keenly. We would dismay those agitating for freedom, boosting opposition factions hostile to us.

This underlines another point: Inaction is also a decision, a policy with consequence. The wish to keep out of it all is entirely understandable, but it is every bit as much a decision as acting.

If you look at Ron Paul's record, you will find that he has not made the world a safer place for the United States, our allies or the world.

Ron Paul & Iran

The strongest example of this is his position on Iran's nuclear program. Watch him explain his views on Iran during the most recent Republican debate in Iowa:  

The fact that Ron Paul is fine with Iran having a bomb should be disturbing to anybody regardless if you're on the left, right or in the middle. 

In fact, Ron Paul's isolationist policy means that America will not support people around the world who went to the streets to protest against their government and demanded greater freedoms to the people. For example, Ron Paul was the only person to vote against the House Resolution to support Iranian protesters back in 2009. 

His isolationist policies also means that Ron Paul would not do anything to stop investors from doing businesses in Iran since he  voted against HR 1400, which aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. But then again, why make it harder for foreign companies to invest in Iran's energy sector if he thinks that Iran is using these nuclear plants for peaceful purposes or that the rest of the world should be fine with Iran using these nuclear plants to make nuclear bombs. 

Ron Paul & Terrorism

 He stated that he would not have approved of sending our special forces to kill Osama Bin Laden. He has also voted against  the Terrorism Information Awareness bill which provides funding for offensive and defensive military programs that would help combat terrorism. He also voted against the Project BioShield Act of 2003 which was an initiative to research and develop vaccines, medications, and other countermeasures to combat biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological bioterrorism threats to our national security and speeds up the process of authorization for funds for research and purchase of agents to combat bioterrorism.

Ron Paul & Israel  

During the Western Republican Debate, Ron Paul said that he would cut foreign aid off to all countries including Israel:

As Tuesday night’s GOP presidential debate turned to the topic of foreign policy, Ron Paul said he would cut “all foreign aid.” When asked if such cuts would also apply to Israel, Paul said, “I would cut all foreign aid. I would treat everybody equally.”

“That foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us…They should have their sovereignty back,” Paul reasoned.

“To cut military spending is a wise thing to do. We would be safer if we weren’t in so many places…We have an empire. We can’t afford it,” Paul asserted.

Its not surprising that Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul, shares the same exact views as his family in which he also wants to cut foreign aid to Israel.  

The problem with Ron and Rand Paul's argument is that from an economic stand point, our problem isn’t how much we spend on foreign aid or on military campaigns. That is not why we are massively in debt. Cutting off foreign aid or bringing all the troops home from wherever they are stationed around the world won't make a dent in reducing the national debt. 

The truth is that we can sustain as many military campaigns as America needs if we weren’t for entitlement spending. Entitlement spending is the single largest driver of our current debt right now. In fact, our government is more efficient in the money it spends on defense related matters than it does with entitlement spending. It is true that our government spends more money than it takes in, but the way Ron Paul wants to reduce the deficit by reducing the amount we spend on national security is neither logical, practical or prudent.

Conclusion

Regardless if you choose to call Ron Paul's position "isolationist" or "noninterventionalist", the  results of his policies are the same: no leadership which results in America taking no action against our enemies at home or abroad. Moreover, if Ron Paul were president, you can imagine that he would have no problem saying no to important programs for national security, counterterrorism, our military or supporting our allies. 

In the end, Ron Paul positions on  foreign policy and national security will never be taken seriously by the general public or by conservatives. The more Ron Paul speaks out on foreign policy and national security, it decreases America's trust in him because it will decrease their ability to feel safe and secure with him as a leader.

That is why Conservatives, moderates, Independents or TEA Party people cannot vote for Ron Paul in any other Republican Primary.  He simply doesn't deserve our support at all.

Why Iran Attempted Terrorist Attacks Against the United States

Today, I read an blog article over at Hot Air in which Allahpundit expressed confusion over Iran's choice to conduct a failed terrorist operation in the Middle East. Allahpundit isn't the only one who is confused by Iran's actions. A lot of people are. 

However, I highly recommend a book called Why They Hate Us: Middle Eastern Politics and the Principle of the Strong Horse, authored by Lee Smith. The title of the book, according to Lee Smith comes from Bin Laden’s observation that when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. 

Lee Smith gave a long interview with Michael Totten in January 2010 in which he talked about his observation about Middle Eastern politics. I will be using quotes from this interview to explain why Iran made a sloppy and poor attempt to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States. 

Osama Bin Laden's observation reveals alot about how the Middle East works. Its also relevant to understanding why a nation like Iran would conduct a sloppy terrorist organization in the United States. 

In order to understand how Bin Laden's observation applies to Iran's botched terrorist attempt, you have know how crucial violence is in Middle Eastern culture and politics:  

To say that Lebanon is held at gunpoint by an armed gang, or that Lebanese journalists are assassinated for their work, Syrian intellectuals and Egyptian rights activists are typically thrown in prison and tortured, and regional minorities like the Shia, Druze, Alawi, Christians, Kurds and Jews have often been the target of purges and political violence all in the name of Arab nationalism, a corporatist ideology that seeks to erase communal as well as individual difference, is not to say that Arabs only understand force, but that violence is a central factor in Arab political life and it is impossible to understand the region without taking this into account. 

Given how central violence is to the Middle East politics, it become easy to see why these countries use violence to maintain national security within that region:

Instead I tend to see 9/11 like this: Middle Eastern regimes, almost all of them, but most notably Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia use various so-called non-state actors to advance their regional interests and deter each other. For instance, Syria’s relationship with Jordan’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Action Front, and Jordan’s friendliness toward the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, means that these two states effectively deter each other—if you use Islamists against me, I will unleash Islamists on you.  

Understand that terrorism a national security tool that Middle Eastern states use and can be considered a unofficial branch of their armed forces:

The jihadi movement, what is often referred to as a transnational network of rogue or non-state actors, is a function of Arab regimes and their security services. 

As a result, according to Lee Smith, terrorism is a foreign policy tool of the Middle East:

Islamist terrorism, is a function of states. Yes, it is an ideological movement with its own history and sources and political ambitions that run counter to the current nation-state system of the Arabic-speaking Middle East; but it is a movement that is sustained by Middle Eastern regimes and their intelligence services who use terror organizations to advance their own strategic interests and deter other states from using terror organizations against them. 

However, despite the fact that Middle Eastern countries use terrorism to project power as well as for foreign and domestic policy reasons, it reveals a major weakness that actually demonstrates how weak these nations really are: 

The fact is that Arab states are weak as it is, and I’m not referring to their inability to provide a better life for their peoples. I mean they can’t defend themselves. The fact they use Al Qaeda to protect them from Iran, and each other, is evidence they are feeble affairs. The Saudis and Egyptians and the rest of the Arabs are waiting on the Israelis to strike the Iranian nuclear program because they can’t do anything about it themselves. As I was saying above, the Arab moment is over, by which I mean the Arabs no longer set the tone and tempo of the region, nor are they even capable of shaping their own destiny. If the Israelis do attack the Iranians it will reveal for all to see what is quite clearly the case: the major regional nodes now are Israel, Iran and perhaps an ascendant Turkey. That’s who is calling the shots in the Middle East today, not the Arabs.

Despite the fact that terrorism reveals how weak Middle Eastern states are in projecting power and maintaining national security, many of these countries still use terrorism as a tool to achieve its foreign policy goals and to prevent other states from achieving their foreign policy goals against them because it is still effective and useful to many of these Middle Eastern nations.

Here's why I think people shouldn't be so confused as to why Iran would conduct a poor terrorist operation. 

Everyone assumes or expects Iran to carry out the operation succesfully and professionally. 

The fact that Iran didn't conduct this mission successfully or professional wasn't the point. The point was to send a message the United States government that it could conduct terrorist attacks unless America agrees to whatever demands Iran is requesting through official and unofficial diplomatic channels. 

However, while Iran's botch terror attempt was designed to communicate a message to America, the real or actual intended recipient of this message wasn't for our country. Iran was sending a message back home to its Middle Eastern neighbors in which it was letting other countries know that they are the strongest horse in the region because it dared to attack the America.  As a result, this is a message warning other nearby states not to mess or interfere with Iran. This message could be because some Middle Eastern nations have joined the international community in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  

If you think this idea is bizzare, check out Lee Smith's reason for why Iran is involved in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: 

The same holds true for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Why does Iran care so much about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? They don’t share a border with Israel, they have not taken in Palestinian refugees like Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, nor are they even an Arab state. Sure, it is a Muslim power and Jerusalem is important to Muslims, but Indonesia is also a Muslim state and it is not anywhere near as vocal as the Tehran regime on this subject; nor of course does the Indonesian government provide many hundreds of millions of dollars of financial support to armed groups that fight Israel, like Hezbollah and Hamas, as the Iranians do.

The reason Iran has inserted itself in the Arab-Palestinian crisis is in order to project power in the region by shaming Sunni states, like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. All of these states, US allies, either have peace treaties with Jerusalem or have opted out of any active participation in the war against Israel. The Iranians calculate that the Arab masses prefer resistance to reform, accommodation and compromise, and so Tehran has picked up the banners of war that the Sunni states have put down. Again, this is not to say that Iran’s rhetoric about destroying Israel is all a put-on, I don’t think it is. But the main reason they are ratcheting up the noise is because they see resistance ideology as a way to get a leg up, as you put it, on their real regional adversaries, the Sunni Arab states. And these countries, along with Israel, are all part of the US-backed order of the Middle East, which means that Iran’s posture toward the Sunnis, as well as Israel, is an enormous issue for us, our major strategic concern right now in the Middle East, bigger than Afghanistan, bigger than Iraq and much bigger than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

With a little extra understanding of the "strong horse" concept in Middle Eastern politics, Iran's actions aren't really that confusing.

Everything You Wanted To Know About How The U.S. Took Down Osama Bin Laden

With a major event like America's successful operation on killing Osama Bin Laden, its hard to keep up with all the details that are swirling around. 

I've decided to scour the Internet and compile all the news into one place. This article is rich with links so that you can click on an aspect of the story that you would like to learn more about. 

As time goes on, I will update this article with more information. 

But let us begin with the question most people are asking: how did the United States find Osama Bin Laden?

The tip came from a Gitmo detainee:

It started with an unnamed courier.

Senior White House officials said Monday that the trail that led to Osama bin Laden began before 9/11, before the terror attacks that brought bin Laden to prominence. The trail warmed up last fall, when U.S. intelligence discovered an elaborate compound in Pakistan.

"From the time that we first recognized bin Laden as a threat, the U.S. gathered information on people in bin Laden's circle, including his personal couriers," a senior official in the Obama administration said in a background briefing from the White House.

After the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, "detainees gave us information on couriers. One courier in particular had our constant attention. Detainees gave us his nom de guerre, his pseudonym, and also identified this man as one of the few couriers trusted by bin Laden."

In 2007, the U.S. learned the man's name.

In 2009, "we identified areas in Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated. They were very careful, reinforcing belief we were on the right track."

It appears that the man who gave up the courier's code name was a top al-Qaeda agent known as Abu Faraj al-Libbi, who was bin Laden’s “official represenative to others within the organization. Abu Faraj al-Libbi was captured by Pakistan on May 2, 2005.

The name of this unnamed courier, who went by the alias Arshad Khan or Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, came as a result of the controversial enhanced interrogation techniques of al Libbi and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists. Some of it may have also come from listening in on a terrorist's phone conversation.  

Sometime around August 2010, the courier made his way to a compound in  Pakistani town called Abbottabad, where al-Libi had once lived. The CIA followed the courier until he led them back to Osama's compound. The CIA rented a house near the compound and began to collect intelligence about who was living in that secret mansion: 

The C.I.A. surveillance team in the rented house near Bin Laden’s hide-out took pains to avoid detection not only by the suspected Qaeda operatives they were watching but by Pakistani intelligence and the local police.

Observing from behind mirrored glass, C.I.A. officers used cameras with telephoto lenses and infrared imaging equipment to study the compound, and they used sensitive eavesdropping equipment to try to pick up voices from inside the house and to intercept cellphone calls. A satellite used radar to search for possible escape tunnels.

Still, the spying operation had its limits: the American surveillance team would see a man take regular walks through the compound’s courtyard — they called him “the pacer” — but they were never able to confirm the man was Bin Laden.

After months of observing the compound, the CIA presented the information to Obama and presented the President with some options on how to take down Bin Laden. Apparently President Obama was indecisive on whether or not the U.S. should take out Osama Bin Laden since they were not completely sure he was living there. As a result, the original idea was to bomb the compound but the President nixed that idea because there would have been no actual proof of Osama Bin Laden's death. 

Instead, they decided that they would send special forces in. There was only one objective in this mission: Kill Bin Laden. 

The Special forces trained for months in a mock set up of the compound  that Osama Bin Laden lived in before they actually flew out to do the mission. You can see where the compound is located on Google Maps. Here’s a Google satellite photo of what may or may not be Osama Bin Laden's compound. You can also see some videos of the compound here.

Despite the fact that they were unsure if Osama Bin Laden was in the compound, they decided go ahead with the raid. 

Special forces descended onto the mansion and began the assault. There are reports that during the raid, Osama Bin Laden was asked to asked to surrender before he was taken down. 

Whether the request was made or not, Osama Bin Laden wasn't going to go down without a fight. Special forces went in and killed the world's most wanted terrorist. However, the special forces operators were unsure that Osama Bin Laden was one of the men they killed until they recovered his body.

The raid on the compound was a complete success. Not only did they kill Bin Laden, but they found a gold mine of information for intelligence analysts to look over. This is the list of items that were taken from the compound:

The haul includes 10 hard drives, five computers and more than 100 storage devices, such as disks, DVDs and thumb drives, a senior U.S. official told CNN. The materials might provide clues on al Qaeda members and potential plots for future attacks.

The commandos also recovered five cell phones, audio and video equipment, "lots" of paper documents and some five guns, including AK-47s and pistols, a U.S. official told CNN homeland security correspondent Jeanne Meserve.

That wasn't the only thing that the U.S. special forces took from the compound. There is also an interesting report that people were captured during the raid:

"After bursts of fire over 40 minutes, 22 people were killed or captured. One of the dead was Osama bin Laden, done in by a double tap -- boom, boom -- to the left side of his face."

Could it be that one of the people captured in the raid was Osama Bin Laden's wife? There is a press report stating that she was shot in the leg during the raid. Others think it was one of Bin Laden's sons that was taken:

There were conflicting reports about the second person the US forces took along with them. Some Pakistani officials say it was one of Bin Laden’s sons injured by the US commandos and thrown onto a separate military chopper; others say he was killed in the operation and it was only his dead body that they took along. 



It is confirmed that one of bin Laden's son is missing from the compound.

There are conflicting reports that Osama was killed by one shot to the head, one shot to the face and chest and that he was shot twice to the left side of his face under his left eye.  Either way, the U.S. had  gotten their man. Once they killed Osama Bin Laden, DNA test confirmed that it was indeed the man they were looking for. Osama Bin Laden's body was taken on to the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson and was buried in the ocean.

Right now, there is a debate in the White House on whether or not they will release a photo of Osama's death. However, at some point, it will be likely that a photo of his death will be shown to the world to verify that America really did kill this man since a small number of people are starting to be skeptical of whether or not Osama Bin Laden was really killed. Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, says that he thinks the photos will be released soon. Moreover, there's a possibility that the helmet cams of the special forces team that went in to take out Bin Laden will be released to the public.

When I first heard that special forces had killed the world's most wanted man, I initially thought it was either Delta Force or Task Force 121. Nope. It was none other than Seal Team 6 that had the honor of taking out Osama Bin Laden. To learn more about Seal Team Six, I highly recommend reading Rouge Warrior by Richard Marcinko. I also recommend reading this article about how lethal our special forces units have become in locating enemies who do not want to be found by the United States.

An interesting fact about the raid is that there are conflicting reports about whether or not Pakistan was aware or informed about the mission. For example, there are reports that Pakistani Intelligence was on site during the mission:

CNN's Nick Paton Walsh reports, citing a senior Pakistani intelligence official, that members of Pakistan's intelligence service - the ISI - were on site in Abbotabad, Pakistan, during the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

Yet, that news contradicted by the fact that the Pakistan was kept in the dark about the mission:

But for its own geopolitical—and purely political—reasons Pakistan is likely to continue being as much part of the problem as part of the solution. At least after the Abbottabad shootout, it’s clear the administration isn’t kidding itself. When it got a shot at Bin Laden, it took it. No dithering. No dilatory diplomacy. Secrecy was maintained. The Pakistanis were cut out. And justice was done.

However, it appears that the Pakistanis were cut out of the mission since a senior White House administration official confirmed that Pakistani leaders weren’t briefed until after the attack. And there is good reason why the U.S. didn't tell Pakistan about the raid: Pakistan couldn't be trusted with the information.  Bin Laden was found to have money and some phone numbers sown into his clothing which indicates he was ready to escape at a moment's notice. Perhaps he was prepared in case someone tipped him off that the U.S. was coming for him.

The relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. will be now tense since there are questions of whether or not Pakistan was providing assistance in hiding Osama Bin Laden. Pakistan's President, President Asif Ali Zardari, denies these allegations. However, I think the evidence strongly points to the fact that Pakistan was helping Osama Bin Laden. For example, we now know that a senior Pakistani Army major lived next door to Osama Bin Laden. We also are learning that the local neighborhood children were known to play  inside the compound yard.  Moreover, it appears that the compound was specifically built for Osama Bin Laden in 2005.  Some people think he may have been living in that compound in Abbotabad for as long as three years or as short as six months. According to bin Laden's wife, she was in that house since 2006.

Moreover, there are reports that Pakistan had information that would have led America to Bin Laden but didn't share it with us.
We're also learning that the many people in the U.S. intelligence community not only believe that Pakistan was helping Bin Laden but that Bin Laden's terrorists may have penetrated Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and military for years and came very close to obtaining nuclear weapons. 

Another interesting question about Pakistan is why didn't they move Osama Bin Laden after another terrorist was picked up three months earlier in Abbottabad?

WSJ reporter Tom Wright notes an amazing coincidence: Arch-terrorist and longtime Bin Laden crony Umar Patek was also captured in Abbottabad three months ago. Here’s a Jakarta Post story on the arrest published just two weeks ago. (Patek is Indonesian and was linked to the Bali bombings in 2002.) Pakistani intel is now claiming, per Wright, that they helped lead the U.S. to Bin Laden via information gleaned from Patek. That seems unlikely — apparently, we’ve known Bin Laden was in Abbottabad for six months or so, and if Pakistan was providing intel on OBL, Obama wouldn’t have waited until after today’s operation to phone Zardari. Still, it’s too startling a coincidence to actually be a coincidence. Did Patek lead us right to Bin Laden’s door by rendezvousing with him? And why didn’t Bin Laden run once Patek was picked up? He must have known by then that either Pakistan or the U.S. was interested in arresting local super-terrorists.

Were the Pakistanis over confident that the U.S. would never come back to Abbottabad to look for Osama Bin Laden? Did they promise Bin Laden that the Americans would not come back and that there was no point in moving him to a new hideout? 

Now that Osama Bin Laden is dead, Ayman al-Zawahri becomes the top candidate for the world's top terror job. Guess who do you think the U.S. will be looking for now:

The JSOC team captured intelligence materials from the compound that might reveal the location of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the organization’s new commander. “That’s where we’re going next,” says one U.S. official involved in planning the operation.

Update: Apparently, the White House is backtracking on some details of about what happened on the raid of Osama's compound and that the new details conflict with one another:

Officials also retreated from claims that one of bin Laden’s wives was killed in the raid and that bin Laden was using her as a human shield before she was shot by U.S. forces.

At a televised White House briefing Monday afternoon, Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan said bin Laden joined in the fight that several residents of the Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound put up against the Navy SEALs during the 40-minute operation.

“He [bin Laden] was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in. And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don’t know,” Brennan said.

At a Pentagon briefing earlier in the day, a senior defense official said bin Laden used a woman as a human shield so he could fire shots. “He was firing behind her,” the official said.

In another background briefing early Monday morning, a senior administration official also said bin Laden put up a fight. “He did resist the assault force. And he was killed in a firefight,” the official said.

However, during a background, off-camera briefing for television reporters later Monday, a senior White House official said bin Laden was not armed when he was killed, apparently by the U.S. raid team.

Another White House official familiar with the TV briefing confirmed the change to POLITICO, adding, “I’m not aware of him having a weapon.”

Apparently the White House still can't get its story straight on whether or not Osama Bin Laden was armed during the raid.  White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that he was unarmed when he was shot yet revised his statement to say that Osama Bin Laden resisted being taken. 

While the White House is busy trying to get its story straight, one of the children who survived the assault on the compound claims that Bin Laden was actually captured alive but shot in the front of the family.

Update: It turns out that the photos of Bin Laden will not be released to the public and the President assures the American people that they are absolutely positive they got him:

“We discussed this internally,” he said. “Keep in mind, we are absolutely certain that this was him. We’ve done DNA sampling and testing. And so there is no doubt that we killed Osama bin Laden.”

“There is no doubt that Osama bin Laden is dead,” he reiterated. “Certainly there is no doubt among al Qaeda members that he is dead. So we don’t think that a photograph in and of itself is going to make any difference.”

“There are going to be some folks who deny it,” he added. “The fact of the matter is, you will not see bin Laden walking on this earth again.”

Personally, I think the President made the right decision not to release the photos. I don't need to see them and neither does anybody else.
 
Update: There is an intriguing conspiracy theory that Ayman al-Zawahiri may have sold Osama out by intentionally letting the CIA follow the courier to Osama bin Laden since there was an irreconcilable split between bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. Its in interesting theory but is highly highly unlikely that al-Zawahiri would have allowed the U.S. to kill him but would have have had his own followers take him out.