Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Study shows divorce can be deadly
Published: 13 Nov 08 10:45 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.de/society/20081113-15501.html
A new German study shows that people who divorce die years sooner than others, putting them in company with smokers, the homeless, and the poorly educated.
Divorced people on average have a life span nine years shorter than others, according to the study by Rostock University’s centre for demographic research released this week.
“We assume that being divorced strongly influences lifestyle,” study contributor Gabriele Doblhammer told daily paper Der Tagesspiegel on Wednesday. “Married people seem to have a more regulated lifestyle than singles, and the divorced embody a combination of factors that can lead to an earlier death.”
The study, which reviewed the influence of social behaviors and conditions on the life expectancies of 50-year-old Germans, found that on average, men can expect to reach 77-years-old, and women 82.3-years-old.
Researchers chose to study 50-year-old subjects because they have “already experienced a lot and adopted behaviors that have an influence on death risks,” Doblhammer told the paper.
People found to have the highest life expectancy were non-smokers, moderate drinkers, married, high-school educated and employed. Females from this group also had one to two children.
Marine base bans anti-Islam decals
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow
A law firm that defends and promotes America's Christian heritage has filed suit against Marine officials on a behalf of a veteran who was ordered not to express his opposition to Islamic terrorism while driving on military installations.
Jesse Nieto is a 25-year Marine veteran who served two tours of duty in Vietnam. His youngest son, Marc, was one of 17 service members killed on October 12, 2000 by Islamic terrorists who bombed the USS Cole. Since 2001, Nieto -- who is now a civilian employee at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina -- has displayed various decals on his vehicle expressing anti-terrorist sentiments such as "Islam = Terrorism" and "We Died, They Rejoiced."
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, says on July 31, 2008, two military police officers issued Nieto a ticket for displaying what they described as "offensive material."
"They decide to make an example of him, issue a ticket, force him to take off the decals -- and then say if you keep any decals on your vehicle that have anything to do with the Islamic terrorists, you can't drive your vehicle on any federal installation," says the attorney.
Thompson says the ban also prohibits his client from driving his vehicle into Arlington National Cemetery to visit the grave of his fallen son.
The lawsuit alleges that military officials have engaged in viewpoint discrimination, noting that other individuals are allowed to display anti-Christian decals of a similar nature on vehicles driving onto the installation.
"That's the Darwin fish that they have, which is an anti-Christian decal," says the Law Center president. "They're permitting those. But they are saying anything that smacks of criticism of radical Islam -- that is, the terrorists -- we're not going to allow."
Thompson describes the case as political correctness run amok.
"I suspect the next thing the Marine command will want to do is eliminate the Marine's Hymn since the phrase 'to the shores of Tripoli' celebrates the Marine victory over Islamic forces in the Barbary Coast War and the Battle of Derne," he states in a press release.
A law firm that defends and promotes America's Christian heritage has filed suit against Marine officials on a behalf of a veteran who was ordered not to express his opposition to Islamic terrorism while driving on military installations.
Jesse Nieto is a 25-year Marine veteran who served two tours of duty in Vietnam. His youngest son, Marc, was one of 17 service members killed on October 12, 2000 by Islamic terrorists who bombed the USS Cole. Since 2001, Nieto -- who is now a civilian employee at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina -- has displayed various decals on his vehicle expressing anti-terrorist sentiments such as "Islam = Terrorism" and "We Died, They Rejoiced."
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, says on July 31, 2008, two military police officers issued Nieto a ticket for displaying what they described as "offensive material."
"They decide to make an example of him, issue a ticket, force him to take off the decals -- and then say if you keep any decals on your vehicle that have anything to do with the Islamic terrorists, you can't drive your vehicle on any federal installation," says the attorney.
Thompson says the ban also prohibits his client from driving his vehicle into Arlington National Cemetery to visit the grave of his fallen son.
The lawsuit alleges that military officials have engaged in viewpoint discrimination, noting that other individuals are allowed to display anti-Christian decals of a similar nature on vehicles driving onto the installation.
"That's the Darwin fish that they have, which is an anti-Christian decal," says the Law Center president. "They're permitting those. But they are saying anything that smacks of criticism of radical Islam -- that is, the terrorists -- we're not going to allow."
Thompson describes the case as political correctness run amok.
"I suspect the next thing the Marine command will want to do is eliminate the Marine's Hymn since the phrase 'to the shores of Tripoli' celebrates the Marine victory over Islamic forces in the Barbary Coast War and the Battle of Derne," he states in a press release.
The Constitution still matters
Posted: November 11, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
"Therefore do not fear them, 'For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.'"
–Matthew 10:26
Hold on. Just a minute. Not only was there no landslide and no mandate, there was no election. The Electoral College doesn't even vote until Dec. 15. And there's one thing that may stand in their way from affirming last Tuesday's popular vote: the Constitution.
For the electors to uphold the Constitution that they're sworn to do with their upcoming vote, they must first know for sure that the candidates meet the basic constitutional requirements for the office of president. He must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and have at least 14 years of residency in these United States. That's not a lot to ask. Pretty basic, really.
And pretty easy. Either you are a natural born citizen or you aren't. Just deliver the original birth certificate and everyone can be on their way. That's just what Phillip J. Berg has asked the United States Supreme Court to do. And the Supreme Court has asked for a response from Barack Obama along with the Democratic National Committee and Federal Elections Commission. And they have until Dec. 1 to respond.
Surely a guy couldn't get this far without meeting the basic requirements, could he? Turns out … he could. Especially if the political party whose job it is to verify that their candidate is qualified has a conflict of interest – they want their guy to win.
Not extreme. Not fringe. Just constitutional. Obama says he's qualified? Phil Berg, multiple legal suits and growing number of Americans say: "Prove it."
Why is there any doubt?
Exhibit A: The Grandmother's tape
I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.
– Obama's paternal grandmother
This is the link where Obama's grandmother says Barack Obama is a native Kenyan.
Here's the phone call where Obama's grandmother says Obama was born in Kenya.
While politicians are known for it, grandmothers seldom lie.
Exhibit B: No birth certificate
Experts have called the Certificate of Live Birth posted online a forgery. Phil Berg reported on my Faith2Action radio program yesterday, "It's clearly been altered," which invalidates it, according to the document itself. Berg added that there is no indication even on this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place. And it turns out that Hawaiian law at the time allowed people to register for this non-hospital short form certificate (without a doctor's signature) up to one year from the date of the child's birth.
Exhibit C: The matter of Indonesian citizenship
Only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools at the time Barack Obama attended school in Indonesia where was registered as Barry Soetoro. His citizenship was listed as Indonesian and his religion as Islam. There was also no dual citizenship at the time.
If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or she becomes an American.
Exhibit D: Travel to Pakistan
U.S. citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 when Barack Obama made his visit – likely with a passport other than a U.S. passport.
Exhibit E: Immigration back to the U.S.
According to Phillip Berg on my radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama went through immigration as he re-entered the United States, he would have become "naturalized," which also would not qualify him to become President. If he did not, said Berg, there is a likelihood that he is now an illegal alien – not even eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate. In fact, Berg suggested there has been no evidence that Barack Obama legally changed his name from Barry Soetoro.
In addition, according to U.S. law, from "Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986," a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama's birth must be:
A natural-born citizen;
Born to two U.S. citizen parents; OR
If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.
Since Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 at the time of his birth, she failed to meet the legal requirements of U.S. residency for at least five years after the age of 16.
Here's the bottom line: either the Constitution matters or it doesn't. And if we're willing to ignore the constitutional requirements for the highest office in the land, what else are we willing to forgo? That part about free speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion? If we are willing to shred one part of the Constitution, brace yourself to lose the rest.
Matthew 10:26 said it best: "Therefore do not fear them, 'There is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.'" The question is whether it will come in time to avert a Constitutional crisis.
If you are a Democrat or Republican elector who cares about the Constitution even more than your party, please email me directly at jfolger@wnd.com. You are sworn to uphold the Constitution with your vote next month, and making sure the constitutional requirements are met is vital for you to uphold that oath.
Members of Congress also need to step up to the plate since they are the ones responsible to approve the vote of the Electoral College. They can be reached at: 202-224-3121. Seems to me a defender of the Constitution like Rep. Ron Paul would be a natural plaintiff in the case to verify that constitutional requirements have been met. Other members with courage to stand need to stand now or forever hold their peace.
Our Founding Fathers were right; the Constitution is still worth defending. Rise up and speak up while there is still time. Go Phil Berg's www.ObamaCrimes.com and join the fight to defend the Constitution. Please forward this to everyone on your e-mail lists.
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
"Therefore do not fear them, 'For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.'"
–Matthew 10:26
Hold on. Just a minute. Not only was there no landslide and no mandate, there was no election. The Electoral College doesn't even vote until Dec. 15. And there's one thing that may stand in their way from affirming last Tuesday's popular vote: the Constitution.
For the electors to uphold the Constitution that they're sworn to do with their upcoming vote, they must first know for sure that the candidates meet the basic constitutional requirements for the office of president. He must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and have at least 14 years of residency in these United States. That's not a lot to ask. Pretty basic, really.
And pretty easy. Either you are a natural born citizen or you aren't. Just deliver the original birth certificate and everyone can be on their way. That's just what Phillip J. Berg has asked the United States Supreme Court to do. And the Supreme Court has asked for a response from Barack Obama along with the Democratic National Committee and Federal Elections Commission. And they have until Dec. 1 to respond.
Surely a guy couldn't get this far without meeting the basic requirements, could he? Turns out … he could. Especially if the political party whose job it is to verify that their candidate is qualified has a conflict of interest – they want their guy to win.
Not extreme. Not fringe. Just constitutional. Obama says he's qualified? Phil Berg, multiple legal suits and growing number of Americans say: "Prove it."
Why is there any doubt?
Exhibit A: The Grandmother's tape
I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.
– Obama's paternal grandmother
This is the link where Obama's grandmother says Barack Obama is a native Kenyan.
Here's the phone call where Obama's grandmother says Obama was born in Kenya.
While politicians are known for it, grandmothers seldom lie.
Exhibit B: No birth certificate
Experts have called the Certificate of Live Birth posted online a forgery. Phil Berg reported on my Faith2Action radio program yesterday, "It's clearly been altered," which invalidates it, according to the document itself. Berg added that there is no indication even on this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place. And it turns out that Hawaiian law at the time allowed people to register for this non-hospital short form certificate (without a doctor's signature) up to one year from the date of the child's birth.
Exhibit C: The matter of Indonesian citizenship
Only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools at the time Barack Obama attended school in Indonesia where was registered as Barry Soetoro. His citizenship was listed as Indonesian and his religion as Islam. There was also no dual citizenship at the time.
If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or she becomes an American.
Exhibit D: Travel to Pakistan
U.S. citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 when Barack Obama made his visit – likely with a passport other than a U.S. passport.
Exhibit E: Immigration back to the U.S.
According to Phillip Berg on my radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama went through immigration as he re-entered the United States, he would have become "naturalized," which also would not qualify him to become President. If he did not, said Berg, there is a likelihood that he is now an illegal alien – not even eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate. In fact, Berg suggested there has been no evidence that Barack Obama legally changed his name from Barry Soetoro.
In addition, according to U.S. law, from "Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986," a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama's birth must be:
A natural-born citizen;
Born to two U.S. citizen parents; OR
If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.
Since Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 at the time of his birth, she failed to meet the legal requirements of U.S. residency for at least five years after the age of 16.
Here's the bottom line: either the Constitution matters or it doesn't. And if we're willing to ignore the constitutional requirements for the highest office in the land, what else are we willing to forgo? That part about free speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion? If we are willing to shred one part of the Constitution, brace yourself to lose the rest.
Matthew 10:26 said it best: "Therefore do not fear them, 'There is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.'" The question is whether it will come in time to avert a Constitutional crisis.
If you are a Democrat or Republican elector who cares about the Constitution even more than your party, please email me directly at jfolger@wnd.com. You are sworn to uphold the Constitution with your vote next month, and making sure the constitutional requirements are met is vital for you to uphold that oath.
Members of Congress also need to step up to the plate since they are the ones responsible to approve the vote of the Electoral College. They can be reached at: 202-224-3121. Seems to me a defender of the Constitution like Rep. Ron Paul would be a natural plaintiff in the case to verify that constitutional requirements have been met. Other members with courage to stand need to stand now or forever hold their peace.
Our Founding Fathers were right; the Constitution is still worth defending. Rise up and speak up while there is still time. Go Phil Berg's www.ObamaCrimes.com and join the fight to defend the Constitution. Please forward this to everyone on your e-mail lists.
Friday, November 14, 2008
CAIR's demand for fees from Michael Savage rejected
Posted: November 13, 2008
4:52 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A Clinton-appointed federal judge ruled in favor of Michael Savage today in an attempt by the Council on American-Islamic Relations to extract attorney fees and costs in a case the nationally syndicated talk radio host brought against the Muslim lobby group.
"This is a huge victory for me, personally, but also for the rest of America who is afraid of this lawsuit-happy group of intimidators," Savage said.
Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California previously dismissed Savage's copyright infringement and RICO lawsuit against CAIR. Savage alleged CAIR illegally published singled-out quotes and audio excerpts from his show regarding Islam, misappropriated his words and used the clips for its own fundraising purposes, damaging the value of his copyrighted material.
Savage noted Illston is a "bona fide liberal, yet she followed the law in the fees motion."
"CAIR tried to tell her in their claim that she 'should get' me, because they were all liberals," he said. "You have to read their sloppy claim to believe it. Now, people will not be afraid to file suits if they have a legitimate claim against CAIR or any other Soros-funded group."
CAIR last year waged a public campaign using excerpted Savage remarks to urge advertisers to boycott his top-rated program. CAIR stated its campaign successfully resulted in Savage losing $1 million in advertising.
Part of Savage's lawsuit alleged CAIR received millions in foreign funding and that the Islamic group may have been wrongfully acting as a lobbyist or agent for a foreign government, violating its nonprofit status.
Savage also alleged CAIR was engaged in racketeering, describing the group as a "mouthpiece of international terror" that helped fund the 9/11 attacks, a contention strongly denied by CAIR.
But Illston threw out the case in July, arguing it is legal to use excerpts of a public broadcast for purposes of comment and criticism.
Illston, nominated to her position by President Bill Clinton, wrote in her ruling that Savage could try to rewrite the racketeering portion of his suit to better fit the specifics of his case.
In May 2007, CAIR was identified by the government as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case involving the Holy Land Foundation, a charity allegedly affiliated with Hamas. Federal prosecutors listed CAIR under the category: “Individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.”
The government also listed Omar Ahmad, CAIR's founder and chairman emeritus, under the same category.
CAIR is registered as a nonprofit organization recognized as tax-exempt under IRS codes, which restrict "lobbying on behalf of a foreign government." CAIR's website claims it receives no foreign government support.
But CAIR's headquarters near the U.S. Capitol until recently was owned by the ruler of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and the ruler's foundation has pledged $50 million to capitalize a long-term CAIR public-relations campaign.
The UAE formally recognized the Taliban, and Dubai reportedly acted as the transit point for cash for the 9/11 hijackers. Two of the hijackers were from the Emirates, and one served in the UAE military.
Until 2005, the Al Maktoum Foundation run by Dubai's ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid held the deed to CAIR's headquarters just three blocks from the Capitol. The same foundation reportedly has held telethons to raise money for families of Palestinian "martyrs" during the intifada – or terrorist war – started in September 2000 against Israel. It recently pledged a $50 million endowment for CAIR.
CAIR argues that any assertions it receives money from foreign governments is "disinformation."
"This is yet another attempt to invent a controversy," the group said. "CAIR's operational budget is funded by donations from American Muslims."
CAIR, however, has never publicly acknowledged $1 million controlling interest that the ruler of Dubai's foundation took in its national headquarters just one year after 9/11.
The group also received $500,000 from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the sheik whose $10 million relief check after 9/11 was rejected by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani after he blamed U.S. policy toward Israel for the attacks.
"There is nothing criminal or immoral about accepting donations from foreign nationals," CAIR asserted. "The U.S. government, corporations and non-profit organizations routinely receive money from foreign nationals."
"Bin Talal is not a member of the Saudi Arabian government," the group added in a statement. "He is a private entrepreneur and international investor."
This may be a distinction without a difference, Savage's lawyers argue, since bin Talal is a member of the Saudi ruling family.
"CAIR is proud to receive support of every individual," CAIR argued, "as long as they are not an official of any foreign government and there are no strings attached to the bequest."
The UAE endowment to CAIR was specifically earmarked for public relations efforts to repair the image of Arabs and Muslims in America after public outrage doomed a Dubai bid to run U.S. ports.
Lawyers for Savage argue that CAIR may have used UAE funds and other foreign support to attack the radio host.
4:52 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A Clinton-appointed federal judge ruled in favor of Michael Savage today in an attempt by the Council on American-Islamic Relations to extract attorney fees and costs in a case the nationally syndicated talk radio host brought against the Muslim lobby group.
"This is a huge victory for me, personally, but also for the rest of America who is afraid of this lawsuit-happy group of intimidators," Savage said.
Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California previously dismissed Savage's copyright infringement and RICO lawsuit against CAIR. Savage alleged CAIR illegally published singled-out quotes and audio excerpts from his show regarding Islam, misappropriated his words and used the clips for its own fundraising purposes, damaging the value of his copyrighted material.
Savage noted Illston is a "bona fide liberal, yet she followed the law in the fees motion."
"CAIR tried to tell her in their claim that she 'should get' me, because they were all liberals," he said. "You have to read their sloppy claim to believe it. Now, people will not be afraid to file suits if they have a legitimate claim against CAIR or any other Soros-funded group."
CAIR last year waged a public campaign using excerpted Savage remarks to urge advertisers to boycott his top-rated program. CAIR stated its campaign successfully resulted in Savage losing $1 million in advertising.
Part of Savage's lawsuit alleged CAIR received millions in foreign funding and that the Islamic group may have been wrongfully acting as a lobbyist or agent for a foreign government, violating its nonprofit status.
Savage also alleged CAIR was engaged in racketeering, describing the group as a "mouthpiece of international terror" that helped fund the 9/11 attacks, a contention strongly denied by CAIR.
But Illston threw out the case in July, arguing it is legal to use excerpts of a public broadcast for purposes of comment and criticism.
Illston, nominated to her position by President Bill Clinton, wrote in her ruling that Savage could try to rewrite the racketeering portion of his suit to better fit the specifics of his case.
In May 2007, CAIR was identified by the government as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case involving the Holy Land Foundation, a charity allegedly affiliated with Hamas. Federal prosecutors listed CAIR under the category: “Individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.”
The government also listed Omar Ahmad, CAIR's founder and chairman emeritus, under the same category.
CAIR is registered as a nonprofit organization recognized as tax-exempt under IRS codes, which restrict "lobbying on behalf of a foreign government." CAIR's website claims it receives no foreign government support.
But CAIR's headquarters near the U.S. Capitol until recently was owned by the ruler of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and the ruler's foundation has pledged $50 million to capitalize a long-term CAIR public-relations campaign.
The UAE formally recognized the Taliban, and Dubai reportedly acted as the transit point for cash for the 9/11 hijackers. Two of the hijackers were from the Emirates, and one served in the UAE military.
Until 2005, the Al Maktoum Foundation run by Dubai's ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid held the deed to CAIR's headquarters just three blocks from the Capitol. The same foundation reportedly has held telethons to raise money for families of Palestinian "martyrs" during the intifada – or terrorist war – started in September 2000 against Israel. It recently pledged a $50 million endowment for CAIR.
CAIR argues that any assertions it receives money from foreign governments is "disinformation."
"This is yet another attempt to invent a controversy," the group said. "CAIR's operational budget is funded by donations from American Muslims."
CAIR, however, has never publicly acknowledged $1 million controlling interest that the ruler of Dubai's foundation took in its national headquarters just one year after 9/11.
The group also received $500,000 from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the sheik whose $10 million relief check after 9/11 was rejected by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani after he blamed U.S. policy toward Israel for the attacks.
"There is nothing criminal or immoral about accepting donations from foreign nationals," CAIR asserted. "The U.S. government, corporations and non-profit organizations routinely receive money from foreign nationals."
"Bin Talal is not a member of the Saudi Arabian government," the group added in a statement. "He is a private entrepreneur and international investor."
This may be a distinction without a difference, Savage's lawyers argue, since bin Talal is a member of the Saudi ruling family.
"CAIR is proud to receive support of every individual," CAIR argued, "as long as they are not an official of any foreign government and there are no strings attached to the bequest."
The UAE endowment to CAIR was specifically earmarked for public relations efforts to repair the image of Arabs and Muslims in America after public outrage doomed a Dubai bid to run U.S. ports.
Lawyers for Savage argue that CAIR may have used UAE funds and other foreign support to attack the radio host.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
CIA head says bin Laden isolated, fighting to survive
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. intelligence agencies believe Osama bin Laden is isolated from al Qaeda and spending much of his energy merely surviving, the head of the CIA said on Thursday.
CIA Director Michael Hayden said hunting down bin Laden remains his agency's priority.
"He is putting a lot of energy into his own survival -- a lot of energy into his own security," Hayden said in a speech at the Atlantic Council in Washington.
"In fact, he appears to be largely isolated from the day-to-day operations of the organization he nominally heads," he said.
In recent weeks, there have been several U.S. missile strikes by unmanned drones around the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
The United States maintains that Taliban and al Qaeda forces operate with relative impunity in tribal areas along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan and use those areas as staging grounds to attack U.S. forces and their allies inside Afghanistan.
Hayden said al Qaeda has been hurt by a sustained fight with the United States and its allies, but remains a threat.
"Al Qaeda has suffered serious setbacks, but it remains a determined, adaptive enemy unlike any our nation has ever faced," Hayden said. "The war is far from over."
Regardless of whether bin Laden is actively helping lead the terrorist organization, the CIA believes capturing or killing him would be a huge blow to al Qaeda, according to Hayden.
"This is an organization that has never been through a change at the top," he said. "For 20 years, bin Laden has been the visionary, the inspiration or harmonizing force behind al Qaeda."
Hayden said it remained to be seen whether bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, could maintain unity in the ranks without him.
"The truth is, we simply don't know what would happen if bin Laden is killed or captured. But I'm willing to bet that whatever happens, it would work in our favor," Hayden said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
