Al-Qaeda leader Bin Laden 'dead'. Again.

[Jan Klimkowski]

I'm not sure.

[Charles Drago]

Wit aside, the exchange above is why I hang around here. Y'all ought to have your very own talk show, podcast, or something.

Not sure that would be a good idea ...

[Helen Reyes]

Um, I surely don't know either, but it was somewhat spectacular how Leon Panetta came out and ruined the White House Situation Room live action snuff film photo within 24 hours, or however long it was.

CIA starting its own wikileaks (officially rather than secretly) with "terabytes" of Osama files is also a little strange, AS IF .... anyone would believe any of it, after director Leon discredited the whole fable publicly...

It might be an either/or: either designed to totally disgrace and catch Obama in a lie while offering him the carrot of no opposition at the Democratic primaries; or, the corpse of Osama suddenly pops up out of the Arabian Sea with a note stuffed in his mouth, and the professional formers of public opinion quit releasing 4chan photoshops and bring out the really good fake photos and helmet cam shots to discredit "the deniers" who bit at the initial bait of obvious fakeness.

However, it does on the surface look like a botched operation promoted to something grand and newsworthy on the fly, and it might just be that, an ad hoc attempt to wring victory from defeat. Nothing looked so bad on president Carter's resume as Oliver North's bombed and wrecked helicopter in Iran sent to rescue hostages being held at the behest of forces within the US intelligence establishment.

I don't know.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Um, I surely don't know either, but it was somewhat spectacular how Leon Panetta came out and ruined the White House Situation Room live action snuff film photo within 24 hours, or however long it was.

CIA starting its own wikileaks (officially rather than secretly) with "terabytes" of Osama files is also a little strange, AS IF .... anyone would believe any of it, after director Leon discredited the whole fable publicly...

It might be an either/or: either designed to totally disgrace and catch Obama in a lie while offering him the carrot of no opposition at the Democratic primaries; or, the corpse of Osama suddenly pops up out of the Arabian Sea with a note stuffed in his mouth, and the professional formers of public opinion quit releasing 4chan photoshops and bring out the really good fake photos and helmet cam shots to discredit "the deniers" who bit at the initial bait of obvious fakeness.

However, it does on the surface look like a botched operation promoted to something grand and newsworthy on the fly, and it might just be that, an ad hoc attempt to wring victory from defeat. Nothing looked so bad on president Carter's resume as Oliver North's bombed and wrecked helicopter in Iran sent to rescue hostages being held at the behest of forces within the US intelligence establishment.

I don't know.

Me too.

But the insightful unpicking of the onion layers of this Tall Tale is a worthwhile endeavour.

And it may be that the core event is close to your (or my, or other) working hypotheses in this thread.

Even if another purpose is to create a sense of the Impossibility of Knowing For Sure....

[Carsten Wiethoff]

From http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDet...=5/14/2011

Did a Pakistani official sell info to CIA to settle in the West?

[URL="http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintWriterName.aspx?ID=1&URL=Wajid%20Ali%20Syed"]Wajid Ali Syed
[/URL] Saturday, May 14, 2011



WASHINGTON: Did a Pakistani intelligence official sell the information about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden to the US last year to get millions of dollars and relocate to a western country with a new non-Pakistani passport? All those seeking to know the full facts of the Osama episode are looking for an answer to this question.

President Barack Obama would not have agreed to go forward with the mission to kill Osama bin Laden had it not been for intense pressure from CIA Director Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, administration sources have revealed.

The advocates of the mission had "reached a boiling point", because President Obama, hesitated for months and kept delaying the final approval. This delay was because of a close aide who suggested that this could damage him politically.

According to these sources, Administration officials were frustrated with the president's indecisiveness and his orders not to carry out the mission in February. President Obama was "dragged kicking and screaming" to give the green light for the operation in the last week of April. By then, the US military and other high-level officials were so determined to launch the operation that they did not want to give the president the opportunity to delay or to call it off. President Obama reluctantly approved to go forward with the operation only if the CIA head agreed to take all the blame in case the mission failed. The planning for the operation underscores the deep divisions in the Obama administration, with President Obama and a close aide, Valerie Jarrett, procrastinating on making a decision and high-ranking officials and members of the cabinet pressing him to go ahead on the other. The chief architect of the plan to "take bin Laden out" was CIA Director Leon Panetta.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, US Commander in Afghanistan General David Petraeus and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were part of the group that supported Panetta.

When asked to comment, the White House referred the question to the National Security Council. The NSC said the Department of Defence was fielding such inquiries. The Defence Department's press office contact Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth Robbins responded with this comment: "The Department of Defense is not giving out any further operational details of the mission."

However, according to an informed official, the story that a courier helped track bin Laden is just a cover. The CIA actually learned of bin Laden's whereabouts in August of 2010, when an informant associated with Pakistani intelligence walked into a US Embassy and claimed that bin Laden was living in a house in Abbottabad. The official, however, would not disclose whether the Embassy was located in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

After confirming that the information was somewhat accurate, the CIA set up a safe house in Abbottabad in September last year to monitor bin Laden's compound.

As the intelligence collection proceeded, the CIA demanded that Pakistan come clean with what they knew about bin Laden, claims the official. In December of 2010, the CIA station chief's identity was made public in the Pakistani press. The intelligence official says that the station chief's cover was blown to retaliate against the CIA for pressing Pakistani intelligence for information about bin Laden. At the time, the speculation was that the move was in response to a civil suit accusing ISI officials of being involved in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Once it was clear that the information from the walk-in source was accurate, Panetta set up a reporting chain from the CIA's Pakistan station direct to him, a highly unusual move that involved bypassing the normal official channels.

Again the US president was not informed of this progress. Meanwhile, the intelligence operatives learned that key people from an Islamic country friendly to Pakistan were sending Pakistan money to keep Osama out of sight and under virtual house arrest, claims the official.

By January of 2011 there was a high degree of certainty that bin Laden was in the house. In early February, Panetta suggested that the US should move on bin Laden. But Gates and Petraeus were determined to avoid the "boots on the ground" strategy at all costs. CIA chief Panetta was in favour of an invasion. But President Obama balked on the advice of Valerie Jarrett, a close aide.

The source maintains that Jarrett's objection to the proposal was based on the worry that the mission could fail, further eroding Obama's approval ratings and the strong likelihood that it would be interpreted as yet another act of aggression against the Muslims. The source explained that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played a crucial role to pressure President Obama to take action. In the last week of April, she met with White House Chief of Staff William Daley to request a meeting with the president to secure approval for the mission. Within hours, Daley called to say that Valerie Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval.

However, Clinton made sure that the vice president was made aware of the situation. The president was later approached by Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta and pressurised to order the mission.

Panetta was directing the operation with both his CIA operatives and the military. The plan was not to capture but to kill bin Laden on sight. Contrary to the news reports, it was Panetta and not President Obama who took the lead on coordinating the details of the mission.

According to the source, the White House staff has compromised the identity of the unit that carried out the mission. The source said the claim that the raid yielded a "treasure trove" of information about al-Qaeda is also exaggerated. Obama meanwhile is "milking" the mission as a tactic to better his chances of re-election in 2012. The concern in intelligence circles is that in his zeal to boost his approval ratings, the president is harming relations with Pakistan.

The writer is currently a freelance journalist based in Washington who has worked for foreign and Pakistani newspapers and TV channels.

[Magda Hassan]

Gossip and unauthorized leaks from U.S. officials, politicians and retired military officers about the highly classified raid to kill Osama bin Laden have jeopardized the ability of special forces to carry out similar operations in the future, said Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
"Too many people in too many places are talking too much about this operation," Gates said, adding that the level of disclosures and blabbing violates an agreement reached in the White House Situation Room on May 8 to keep details of the raid private.
"That lasted about 15 hours," Gates said sourly.
The cascade of details surfacing about the highly classified event makes similar operations in the future "that much more difficult and riskier," Gates told reporters at a Pentagon briefing Wednesday.
"It is time to stop talking," agreed Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In a pointed directive to officials, politicians and the retired military officers often featured on cable news programs, he added, "Get off the net."
Members of the Navy SEAL team that tore into bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan and killed the 9/11 mastermind had expressed concern to Gates about the safety of their families after the team had been identified publicly and officials from the White House, the Pentagon and Congress widely discussed the operation.
In a meeting with hundreds of Marines at Camp Lejeune last week, Gates acknowledged such concerns. He said the Defense Department had mounted "a consistent and effective effort" to protect the identities of those who participated in the raid.
"We are very concerned about the security of our families -- of your families and our troops, and also these elite units that are engaged in things like that," Gates told the Marines.
"And without getting into any details, I would tell you that when I met with the team last Thursday, they expressed a concern about that, and particularly with respect to their families," he added. "And so we're -- I -- as you say, I can't get into the details in this forum, but we are looking at what measures can be taken to pump up the security."
White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon initially disclosed sketchy details of the raid they day after it happened. But more information poured forth from Capitol Hill after members of Congress were briefed on the operation and as retired SEALs and others began explaining tactical details. Much of the information published was credited to unnamed officials.
Officials and politicians have discussed the "stealth" helicopter that the SEALs were forced to leave behind after it malfunctioned over bin Laden's compound and the use of "stealth" drones that watched the compound for weeks before the raid, unseen by Pakistani air defense facilities. Leakers have also disclosed details of how the SEALs had planned to storm the compound, the back-up plan once the helicopter malfunctioned, and other tactical pieces of information.
"We have gotten to a point where we are close to jeopardizing the precision capability that we have, and we can't afford to do that," Mullen told reporters. "This fight isn't over."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18...63712.html

[Jan Klimkowski]

From http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDet...=5/14/2011

Did a Pakistani official sell info to CIA to settle in the West?

[URL="http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintWriterName.aspx?ID=1&URL=Wajid%20Ali%20Syed"]Wajid Ali Syed
[/URL] Saturday, May 14, 2011

WASHINGTON: Did a Pakistani intelligence official sell the information about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden to the US last year to get millions of dollars and relocate to a western country with a new non-Pakistani passport? All those seeking to know the full facts of the Osama episode are looking for an answer to this question.

President Barack Obama would not have agreed to go forward with the mission to kill Osama bin Laden had it not been for intense pressure from CIA Director Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, administration sources have revealed.

The advocates of the mission had "reached a boiling point", because President Obama, hesitated for months and kept delaying the final approval. This delay was because of a close aide who suggested that this could damage him politically.

According to these sources, Administration officials were frustrated with the president's indecisiveness and his orders not to carry out the mission in February. President Obama was "dragged kicking and screaming" to give the green light for the operation in the last week of April. By then, the US military and other high-level officials were so determined to launch the operation that they did not want to give the president the opportunity to delay or to call it off. President Obama reluctantly approved to go forward with the operation only if the CIA head agreed to take all the blame in case the mission failed. The planning for the operation underscores the deep divisions in the Obama administration, with President Obama and a close aide, Valerie Jarrett, procrastinating on making a decision and high-ranking officials and members of the cabinet pressing him to go ahead on the other. The chief architect of the plan to "take bin Laden out" was CIA Director Leon Panetta.

Carsten - thanks for posting. This is an important article, and needs to be considered as we analyze what really happened.....

My own initial contribution to that analysis is that I categorize such articles as Political Porn, for Inside the Beltway reporters. They enable political correspondents (lobby correspondents in UK terms) to concoct narratives about infighting amongst our politicians.

Such "political infighting" narratives strike me as fundamentally diversionary.

During the 2nd Gulf War there were plenty of stories about infighting between Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, with Dubya Bush cast as the Prez being forced to choose.

Any deep political analysis of Powell's career reveals his role as the officer chosen to cover up My Lai, who was later posted to the Golden Triangle with his "white son" and muscle, Richard Armitage.

I regard all that Cheney versus Powell stuff as political theatre, and largely untrue. A few squabbles around tactics or timing perhaps. But no real disagreement about geopolitical goals.

So, I regard the Wajid Ali Syed article with tales of infighting between those around Obama, and describing Obama as weak and procrastinating, as largely political fable to give the West Wing correspondents some subject matter.

I find the following especially incredible:

By January of 2011 there was a high degree of certainty that bin Laden was in the house. In early February, Panetta suggested that the US should move on bin Laden. But Gates and Petraeus were determined to avoid the "boots on the ground" strategy at all costs. CIA chief Panetta was in favour of an invasion. But President Obama balked on the advice of Valerie Jarrett, a close aide.

What?!?!?

DCIA wanted to INVADE Pakistan to "get Bin Laden"?

That strikes me as fundamentally implausible.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

What?!?!?

DCIA wanted to INVADE Pakistan to "get Bin Laden"?

That strikes me as fundamentally implausible.

Me too. I think this could be a mistranslation, the conflict being whether to send soldiers to get Bin Laden or to simply bomb the building.

[Helen Reyes]

Gordon Duff tells Iran's Press TV Osama clone run by Raymond Davis was hit in raid:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/180564.html
"US killed Bin Laden clone in Pakistan"

ISI and CIA concocted alternative to virulently independent Kashmir separatist organization owned Abbottabad "mansion" and there was marijuana growing in the vegetable garden according to reporters who visited after the raid:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-main...n-compound
"Does a CIA 'Asset' Own the bin Laden Compound?"

[Peter Lemkin]

Gordon Duff tells Iran's Press TV Osama clone run by Raymond Davis was hit in raid:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/180564.html
"US killed Bin Laden clone in Pakistan"

ISI and CIA concocted alternative to virulently independent Kashmir separatist organization owned Abbottabad "mansion" and there was marijuana growing in the vegetable garden according to reporters who visited after the raid:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-main...n-compound
"Does a CIA 'Asset' Own the bin Laden Compound?"

While an interesting prospect or 'twist', who wrote that article? I think we are now dealing with slab upon slab of disinfo mean to bury forever the truth of what happened and who was there [living there and invading there]. This worry [wring hands icon] about 'people talking too much about what happened' are crocodile tears and pure theater. It would take a NON-USA independent investigation to ever untangle this. Short of that [and we can be sure of short of that!], the clarity will become more like the fog of war...the war against all but the ultra-rich, ultra-oligarchs of his World. Sadly.