Obama Makes It Through Another Day Of Resisting Urge To Launch All U.S. Nuclear Weapons At Once

WASHINGTON—Despite being constantly tempted by the seductive power of having an apocalyptic arsenal at his fingertips, President Barack Obama somehow made it through another day Tuesday without unlocking the box on his desk that houses "the button" and launching all 5,113 U.S. nuclear warheads.

Though the president confirmed his schedule was packed with security briefings, public appearances, and cabinet meetings, he said he couldn't help but steal a few glances at the bright red button, which is "right there, staring at [him], all the time."

Tuesday marks the 841st-straight day Obama has withstood the button's powerful allure.

"I think I was closer to pressing the button today than I have ever been," Obama said during a press conference from the White House Rose Garden, adding that he would be lying if he said he wasn't thinking about the button right at that very moment. "Let me be clear: I do not want to start a thermonuclear war. But knowing that I could at any moment, and that it would be so easy, well, it almost feels like I'm being tested or something."

"Did you know that if you sort of put enough weight on the button with your fingertip, you can feel a little slack there before it actually clicks?" Obama added. "Thank you, and God bless America."

According to Beltway insiders, it has taken everything in Obama's power lately to distract himself from the button, which the president once told an aide is "sort of begging to be pressed, you know?" At one point Tuesday, Obama reportedly forced himself to stop glaring at the button by leaving his desk and staring silently across the White House lawn, only to return seconds later to gaze at it some more.

Obama has also been overheard asking White House staffers if they weren't just the least bit curious what would happen if he just waltzed in there right now and pushed it.

"I don't want to unleash Armageddon," said Obama, adding that there is a 50-50 chance he won't be able to get through his next day in office without pressing the button at least once. "But it's hard not to dare myself to do it. It's like I'm standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon, taking it all in, and I'm one millisecond away from saying to myself, 'Fuck it, Barack. Just jump.'"

"Bravo-Delta-five-seven-three-Delta-Charlie-zero-two-Tango-Tango-eight-one-six-Echo-Foxtrot-zero-zero-nine-four-nine," Obama continued. "Those were the launch codes as of three minutes ago. They constantly change, but I memorize them."

Sources told reporters that when Obama first took office, the thought of pressing the button and launching thousands of ICBMs only crossed his mind two or three times a day. Two-and-a-half years into his term, however, the button consumes him at all times, whether he is watching basketball, playing with his children, or lying in his bed at night. During a deficit-reduction meeting last Monday with House Speaker John Boehner, the president's index finger was reportedly resting on the button the entire time without his even realizing it.

"Apropos of nothing, the president approached me one day and said, 'Think about it: There is a button 3 feet away from me, that I, a human being, could press and virtually end the human race. Tell me you wouldn't be slightly tempted to push it,'" Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) said. "Then the president said he often wondered if the exploding bombs would look like a movie in which dozens and dozens of mushroom clouds rise from Earth and can be seen from outer space."

"The way he talked about it, I think I would have pressed it by now, honestly," Conrad added. "Jesus, I'm breathing faster just thinking about it."

Historians have noted that a strong desire to press the button is not uncommon among U.S. presidents. After just one year in office, Jimmy Carter wrote in his diary, "You don't leave a man alone in a room with a button like that," and two years later the pages were simply covered with the word "button" over and over again. In 1974, Richard Nixon rapidly pressed the button 12 times just prior to his resignation, but Pentagon officials had already disconnected its triggering mechanism.

At press time, large-scale nuclear explosions had been confirmed in Pyongyang, Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Washington, D.C.

READ MORE - Obama Makes It Through Another Day Of Resisting Urge To Launch All U.S. Nuclear Weapons At Once

Liberals in southern Arizona seek to form new state

TUCSON, Arizona (Reuters) - A long-simmering movement by liberal stalwarts in southern Arizona to break away from the rest of the largely conservative state is at a boiling point as secession backers press to bring their longshot ambition to the forefront of Arizona politics.

A group of lawyers from the Democratic stronghold of Tucson and surrounding Pima County have launched a petition drive seeking support for a November 2012 ballot question on whether the 48th state should be divided in two.

The ultimate goal of the newly formed political action committee Start our State is to split Pima County off into what would become the nation's 51st state, tentatively dubbed Baja Arizona.

Backers have until July 5 next year to collect the 48,000 signatures required to qualify for a spot on the ballot. If they succeed, it would mark only the first hurdle in a long, circuitous process that even the most determined of supporters readily acknowledge has little chance of bearing fruit.

"We at least need to get it on the ballot, as a nonbinding resolution, to ask the people of Pima County if they want to be a part of Arizona," Tucson attorney Paul Eckerstrom, a former Pima County Democratic chairman who launched the campaign, told Reuters. "All the stars would have to align for this to happen, but it could conceivably happen by the fall of 2013."

U.S. history is replete with efforts to carve one state from another -- from the creation of Kentucky and Tennessee in the 1790s to more modern misfires like proposals to partition Long Island from New York or to split California in half.

The last successful intrastate secession movement was the formation of West Virginia during the Civil War.

SIZE MATTERS

Although Baja Arizona would be created from just a single county, it would hardly rank as the smallest territory to be granted statehood. Pima County exceeds Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut and New Jersey in land mass and surpasses several other states in population, including Alaska, Montana, Wyoming or the Dakotas, according to the U.S. Census.

Partisan tensions have long been a fact of life between left-leaning Pima County and a Phoenix-based political establishment that has produced such conservative giants as Barry Goldwater and John McCain.

But the rift was heightened during the past two years as Republican Governor Jan Brewer and her allies in control of the statehouse pursued a political agenda Democrats saw as extreme, including a crackdown on illegal immigration and proposals, ultimately unsuccessful, to nullify some federal laws.

State lawmaker Ted Vogt, a Republican who represents about one-fifth of Pima County residents, dismissed the breakaway movement as posturing by disgruntled Democrats who see themselves losing clout in state politics.

The county's three mostly rural, Republican-leaning House districts are growing, and so is their influence, Vogt said.

"I don't think a majority of Pima County residents want to leave Arizona," he told Reuters.

Even Tucson's best-known Democrat, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, had to fight tooth and nail to fend of a Republican challenge in her bid for a third term in November.

The ballot measure sought by Arizona secession backers is a nonbinding measure asking Pima County voters if they support petitioning state lawmakers for permission to break away.

Before secession could occur, it would have to be approved separately by the Legislature, and by a second, binding referendum by residents of the proposed state.

If the Legislature refused, organizers could try to sidestep lawmakers with a statewide referendum. If both the Legislature and Pima County voters agreed, then it would be up to the U.S. Congress to grant Baja Arizona formal statehood.

The modern concept of Baja Arizona dates back to 1965, according to Hugh Holub, a local attorney widely credited with coining the term that year during anti-war protests at the University of Arizona. He supports the current effort.

"It sure sends a message to the rest of the world that we aren't like the folks in Maricopa (County)," he said, referring to the state's population center and capital.

But a more historical precedent can be found in Arizona's origins as a U.S. territory, more than half a century before statehood was granted in 1912. The northern bulk of Arizona was ceded by Mexico to the United States in 1848, six years before the lower portion of the territory, south of the Gila River, was separately acquired in 1854 under the Gadsden Purchase.

"It should have been its own state from the get-go," Holub said.

(Editing by Steve Gorman and Greg McCune)

READ MORE - Liberals in southern Arizona seek to form new state

John Boehner: Cut 'trillions' as debt limit nears

NEW YORK — Speaker John Boehner came here Monday to lend a peek to a worried Wall Street and a concerned Washington as to where he stands as the nation rapidly approaches its statutory debt ceiling.

What they heard was that he feels no urgency.

The Ohio Republican used a speech to the Economic Club of New York to unveil a staunchly conservative plan to offset a debt ceiling hike with spending cuts of a greater amount, putting House Republicans on a collision course with Democrats who want much more modest spending restrictions attached to the vote.

He also told a packed, well-dressed ballroom at the Hilton New York that the debt limit has no “hard date” — a sign he does not take seriously the Democrats’ dire warnings of default in a few months.

And he reaffirmed that reforming the popular program Medicare is fully on the table in the negotiations, that tax hikes are a non-starter, and that defense spending deserves a look but vowed to not raise the debt ceiling without what he dubs “real action to solve our long-term economic problems.”

And he left through a side entrance before dinner even began.

In sum, Boehner’s plan here was bold in broad strokes, but safe enough that it offered no true specifics that will hamstring him in the future. For example, he didn’t vow to let the debt ceiling lapse if doesn’t get the hike offset. He didn’t box himself in on any plan, including a plan favored by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to let U.S. coporations bring corporate profits back home at a lower rate — Boehner said it can only come with fundamental tax reform.

But what was most monumental was Boehner’s laying a marker that will set the stage for interesting negotiations with Congressional Democrats and the White House as they work to find a solution to raising the debt ceiling.

“Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase,” Boehner said. “And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given. We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions.”

Not meeting that target could upset conservatives when the debt ceiling is eventually raised.

Otherwise, Boehner tried to lighten the mood as much as he could in a room filled with wingtips and conservative dark suits. He joked with billionaire Peter G. Peterson, saying he should pay health insurance premiums. The two-decade veteran of Washington tried to strike a populist, outsider tone, telling New Yorkers that he’s “not from around here” and that “Washington’s arrogance has triggered a political rebellion in our country.”

The rebellion he might see could come from Democrats in D.C., who are sure to seize on Boehner’s contention that there “really is no hard date when it comes to increasing the debt limit.” It will serve to embolden Democrats like Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who urged the speaker to guarantee a debt limit increase during his visit here. He didn’t come close to doing that. In fact, he emphatically said he wouldn’t allow a hike without reforms and cuts.

“As I said earlier, not increasing the debt ceiling would be irresponsible,” Boehner said in one of the night’s unscripted moments. “Having said that, I do not want to allow this moment that we have in our history to pass without real action to solve our long-term economic problems.”





That fact that Boehner took his case directly to Wall Street is significant — the Republican leader clearly wanted to send a message to the markets that he’s got a strong plan for a debt limit package that reigns in spending while allowing more debt to be accrued. Boehner noted that the crowd was probably “uneasy,” but that unease could have been compounded when he said raising the debt ceiling “without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process” would be “more irresponsible” than allowing the nation to default on its debt.

That’s why this address was just as important for those inside the Beltway as it was for financial titans: It was the first peek behind the curtain at how Boehner is positioning himself. For his part, Cantor has a series of closed events Tuesday with the financial community, including executives at the New York Stock Exchange.

The chief concern that Wall Street is trying to balance is the need for deficit reduction vs. the likelihood that the nation needs to borrow more money.

The proposals Boehner unveiled in New York were bold in how far they tacked to the right and how high he set the bar for spending cuts. For example, under Boehner’s vision, Republicans would have to find more than $2 trillion in cuts if they wanted to raise the debt ceiling by that amount through 2012, according to the Treasury department’s estimates on the debt limit. But Republicans could also go for a more incremental increase in the debt ceiling, coupling that with a smaller offsetting cut in spending. Boehner’s preference is for immediate cuts, not promises to pare back spending in the future or set triggers for deficit reduction.

But by mentioning “trillions” in long-term cuts, Boehner is clearly putting entitlement reform in play — including Medicare — since it would be nearly impossible to cut trillions without affecting entitlement spending. He also said defense spending, the needs a “fundamental review” because the department “does not spend their 600-plus billion dollars every year as efficiently as you would spend your money or I would spend mine,” Boehner told Peterson in the question-and-answer portion.

Boehner said, “Everything is on the table … that includes honest conversations about how best to preserve Medicare, because we all know, with millions of Baby Boomers beginning to retire, the status quo is unsustainable. If we don’t act boldly now, the markets will act for us very soon.”

Defense spending, the speaker said, needs a “fundamental review” because the Defense Department “does not spend their 600-plus billion dollars every year as efficiently as you would spend your money or I would spend mine,” Boehner told Peterson in the question-and-answer portion.

Politicking, though, was never far behind. In his address, calling out Democrats, Boehner said that the “mere threat of tax hikes causes uncertainty for job creators — uncertainty that results in less risk-taking and fewer jobs.”

Playing to the crowd, Boehner also said that financial regulatory reform passed under Democrats – a law known as Dodd-Frank – was “all wrong.”

Once again, the speaker also reiterated that reforming Medicare should be a part of the negotiations, something that congressional Democrats and the Obama administration have been averse to. Boehner used the opportunity to come out against debt and deficit targets, rather preferring immediate cuts to programs that amounts to trillions in slashes, not billions.

“To increase the debt limit without simultaneously addressing the drivers of our debt — in defiance of the will of our people — would be monumentally arrogant and massively irresponsible,” Boehner said, brushing back on Democrats who are calling for a clean vote. “It would send a signal to investors and entrepreneurs everywhere that America still is not serious about dealing with our spending addiction. It would erode confidence in our economy and reduce certainty for small businesses. And this would destroy even more American jobs.”

It’s too early to tell how Boehner’s plan will play with House Republicans. Some hard-line conservatives would rather have a separate debate on entitlement reform, one that involves hearings and separate legislation, others won’t settle for any debt limit increase without entitlement reform.

As Boehner makes his pitch on the debt limit, Vice President Joseph R. Biden is hosting deficit talks at the White House this month, but no one is truly sure if the panel is a sideshow or the main stage for debt ceiling increase legislation. Boehner and Obama are widely expected to cut the final deal.

In a sign of fresh involvement, the White House announced Obama would meet with Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans this week, followed by House lawmakers in the coming weeks.

READ MORE - John Boehner: Cut 'trillions' as debt limit nears

Arizona Senator John McCain Second-Most-Disliked U.S. Senator in the Country

Just three days after Public Policy Polling found that just about no one likes Sarah Palin or Donald Trump, the pollsters say today that Arizonans don't like their senators either.

Arizona Senator John McCain -- who had a 40 percent approval rating in the firm's January polling -- now has a 34 percent approval rating, the second-lowest among U.S. senators in the nation.

"[McCain] has improved considerably with the GOP after a bruising primary battle last summer and his White House loss, but he is in the basement with everyone else," the pollsters say in a statement.

The only U.S. Senator disliked more than John McCain is Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman -- with just 29 percent of Connecticut respondents approving of his job performance.

To be fair to McCain, Republican Nevada Senator John Ensign had a lower approval rating than The Maverick -- but it doesn't really count, since Ensign quit his post earlier in the week amid an ethics investigation.

Then there's Arizona Senator Jon Kyl -- in the aftermath of his "not intended to be a factual statement" gaffe -- who managed to drop down 27 spots in the Senate popularity contest to a ranking of "well below" average, ending with a mere 42 percent approval rating.

To the likely surprise of no one, Arizona's other two big-name goofballs -- Governor Jan Brewer and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio -- both had slightly favorable approval ratings.

And for the fun fact of the day, only 20 percent of respondents said Arizona should have an official state gun.

The 623 Arizona voters responding to the poll -- mostly old, white Republicans -- were the same respondents in the Palin/Trump results released on Tuesday.

READ MORE - Arizona Senator John McCain Second-Most-Disliked U.S. Senator in the Country

Republicans Force Americans To Sign Their Paychecks Over to Big Oil

For the past month, Republicans have preached to the American people that the country is broke and that without Draconian spending cuts to social programs, the deficit will continue to grow. The Republicans have defied business logic and made cuts while refusing to consider raising revenue through tax increases on corporations and the wealthy. John Boehner and company say that a typical American family would follow suit in their personal budgets and cut back to make ends meet. With gas prices at $4.399 per gallon nationally, Americans are cutting back on travel and when possible, are holding down more than one job to augment the family budget.

The country is certainly cash-strapped, but Republicans are making sure the oil industry is flush with taxpayer money. Yesterday, it was revealed that the oil industry’s profits for 2010 were $60.9 billion for the top three oil companies. The most profitable company in the 2010 Fortune 500 list, Exxon Mobil, recorded profits of $30 billion that was helped by record gas prices, oil subsidies from taxpayers, and tax breaks for exploration and drilling. If America is broke like Republicans claim and they have to cut entitlement programs for the poor, why aren’t they cutting oil industry entitlements?

Apparently, the record profits are not sufficiently obscene for Republicans because they voted to extend taxpayer-funded oil subsidies as recompense for campaign contributions from the oil industry. There is also a small matter of royalty payments for oil captured off the outer continental shelf. When an oil company explores and drills for oil on federal land, after they recoup their expenses they are supposed to pay royalties on drilling leases. As it stands now, oil companies are not paying royalties on oil from federal land regardless the record profits they make.

In a House oversight and Government Reform Committee meeting in early March, Representative Dennis Kucinich informed the committee that, “Due to a flaw in the 1995 Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act, numerous oil companies are now drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in federal lands and paying no royalties to the federal government.”  Republicans have resisted attempts to correct the flaw that would force the oil industry to pay the royalties the same way they resist ending subsidies and tax breaks for the oil industry. According to a report (pg. 200) from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Special lower royalty rates granted on leases issued in the deep water areas of the Gulf of Mexico from 1996-2000 could result in $21 billion to $53 billion in lost revenue to the federal government.” During the hearing chaired by Rep. Daryl Issa (R-CA), the Republicans feigned surprise at the revelation, but it turns out they voted against reworking the leases so the oil industry could avoid paying royalties indefinitely.

It is bad enough that Republicans are giving subsidies to the oil industry with money taken from programs for the poor like the WIC (Women, Infants, & Children) program to assist with health and nutrition needs, but the oil lobby’s puppets in the GOP are giving huge tax breaks to companies like Exxon Mobil. The company’s CEO collected $21.5 million for gouging the government and the American people, and because of loopholes created by the industry’s lobbyists, Exxon Mobil paid no income taxes for their record profits and in fact, received a $156 million rebate from taxpayers. Republicans facilitate the oil industry to rape taxpayers at the pump, with subsidies, no royalty payments, and no income taxes; and they have no intention of changing anytime soon.

There are some Republican lawmakers who dispute the assertion that the oil industry receives subsidies or tax breaks and agree with oil industry executives who complain that eliminating subsidies is tantamount to a tax increase. Exxon’s vice president, Ken Cohen, complained that by eliminating subsidies, what President Obama really wants is, “to increase our taxes by taking away long-standing deductions for our industry.”

Tim Pawlenty, a presidential hopeful said eliminating subsidies is “ludicrous and a tax increase” and that “the worst thing we could do is raise the cost burden on costs on energy and oil…What he’s proposing is a tax increase on energy at a time when the gas is $4 a gallon. It’s preposterous.” It is not preposterous and eliminating subsidies will not end our dependence on foreign oil, eliminate jobs, or impact the price of gasoline at the pump. Pawlenty is echoing scare tactics used by oil lobbyists to perpetuate the billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks hard-working Americans are giving to the oil industry.

Pawlenty typifies Republicans’ largesse with taxpayer money for the most profitable corporations in the world who, like Exxon, pay little or nothing in income taxes. From the lead-up to the 2010 midterm elections to the present day, congressional Republicans led by House Speaker John Boehner said they were doing the work of the American people. It is reasonable to assume that the majority of Americans do not approve of Republicans giving taxpayer dollars to the oil industry. However, Americans must remember that Republicans work for the oil industry and protect their interests at all costs. When President Obama said he would hold BP responsible for the ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Republicans apologized to BP and criticized the president for treating the oil giant unfairly.

The Republicans in Congress must cease giving the oil industry taxpayer money and start working for the American people. If America is broke like Republicans claim, it is only because they take what little revenue the government collects and give it to the oil industry. Instead of only cutting spending, Republicans should follow good business practice and increase revenue by making oil companies pay royalties and income taxes. As it stands now, Republicans give Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars directly to companies like Exxon and BP, and to pay for the oil industry entitlements they cut services.

Congressional Republicans told their constituents they want to end oil subsidies, but voted unanimously to continue the unfair entitlements. Republicans disparage spending on the American people because they claim the deficit is too high but they will not increase revenue. The oil industry is flush with taxpayer money that is better suited making infrastructure improvements that creates jobs, or providing health services and nutritional assistance to low-income families. If Republicans have their way, it won’t be long until every American is forced to sign their paychecks over to big oil and the government will transfer its assets to companies like Exxon and BP. The Republicans have almost achieved that goal.

READ MORE - Republicans Force Americans To Sign Their Paychecks Over to Big Oil

Bradley Manning is at the Center of the WikiLeaks Controversy. But Who Is He?

In January 2010, more than 130 people gathered to celebrate the opening of Room B-28, a “hacker space” in the basement of the computer science building at Boston University. The room had two rows of computers running open-source software, and, in conformity to the hacker ethic, its walls were painted with wildly colored murals, extensions of the free expression to be practiced there. That was the reason for the power tools, too — in case someone wanted to build something amazing and beautiful, such as the musical staircase, under construction now, that chimes when you step on it.

One of the visitors was a young Army specialist named Bradley Manning, on leave from duty in Iraq. He had been working with computers, modifying code, since he was a kid. David House, founder of the hacker space, said he immediately sensed that Manning “was in the community,” someone who understood how technology could be empowering. This was the sort of world Manning hoped to inhabit one day, friends said. He had joined the Army so the GI Bill would finance his education. He had his eye on a PhD in physics.

Days later, he would be on a plane back to Baghdad and a culture where rule-breaking was not celebrated. And eight months after that, House — who had chatted with the man for barely 15 minutes — went to visit him in the brig at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia, where Manning was being held as the prime suspect inthe largest national security leak in U.S. history.

He is accused of violating military computer security and leaking classified information to the insurgent Web site WikiLeaks. He faces 22 charges, including “aiding the enemy,” a capital crime. The material includes a video of an Apache helicopter firing on civilians in Baghdad, daily field reports from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a quarter-million cables from U.S. diplomats around the world. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has called the cable leaks “an attack on America’s foreign policy interests.”

For most of the past year, Manning spent 23 hours a day alone in a 6-by-12-foot jail cell. His case has become a rallying point for free-information activists, who say the leaked information belongs to the American people. They compare the 23-year-old former intelligence analyst to Daniel Ellsberg, leaker of the Vietnam War-era Pentagon Papers, and decry excessive government secrecy. “What is happening to our government when Bradley Manning is charged with aiding the enemy?” asked Pete Perry, an organizer with the Bradley Manning Support Network. “Who is the enemy? Information? The American people?”

The case raises troubling issues. Placing information in the public domain has never before been construed as aiding the enemy. Manning had a history of emotional outbursts throughout his youth, and they continued during his Army service, culminating in a breakdown in Baghdad.

How did a young man of such promise wind up in a brig? And how was he in a position to potentially access sensitive material given what the Army knew — or should have known — about him? Who is Bradley Manning, and what made him the way he is?

READ MORE - Bradley Manning is at the Center of the WikiLeaks Controversy. But Who Is He?

CNN Poll: Majority in U.S. say bin Laden in hell

Washington (CNN) - Of all the newspaper headlines covering the death of Osama bin Laden, the most provocative may have been the New York Daily News.

Their "Rot in Hell" Monday headline, with a full front-page photo of bin Laden, was mentioned by the cable news networks and generated buzz on the on-line social networks.

So do Americans think that the founder and leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network is now in hell?

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday, 61 percent of the public says yes, with one in ten saying no and nearly a quarter unsure.

"Not all Americans believe in hell - a point of view reflected in the relatively large number of 'don't know' responses - and many religions don't include punishment in an afterlife as part of their teachings," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Nonetheless, the six in ten who say bin Laden is in hell reflects how strongly many Americans feel that bin Laden was an evil figure."

"This is one question on which there is little partisan division - at least six in ten Democrats, independents and Republicans all believe bin Laden is in hell," adds Holland.

The survey was conducted Monday, one day after the president's announcement that the al Qaeda founder and leader was shot and killed by U.S. forces during a raid in Pakistan.

Seven-hundred national adults were questioned by telephone for the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

– CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report

READ MORE - CNN Poll: Majority in U.S. say bin Laden in hell