WASHINGTON, May 8, 2011 -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: This week, Osama bin Laden as we've never seen himbefore, a new window into how he lived and how he died.
OBAMA: Justice is done. The world is safer.
AMANPOUR: But is it really?
(UNKNOWN): Al Qaida was plotting -- the target was passenger trains.
(UNKNOWN): There's a real concern about retaliation.
AMANPOUR: We'll ask the president's national security adviserwhat's being done to keep Americans safe. Will clues from bin Laden'scompound thwart future attacks? Or will Al Qaida strike back?
Then, tough questions for Pakistan. Did America's ally harbor theworld's most notorious terrorist? Our top correspondents covering thestory all week bring the latest developments from Pakistan toAfghanistan to right here in the United States.
ANNOUNCER: Live from the Newseum in Washington, "This Week" withChristiane Amanpour starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program. This week, the whole world wastransfixed by a single story. The headlines said it all: Osama binLaden, the most notorious terrorist in history, shot and killed byAmerican forces.
The horror that he inflicted left an indelible mark on the Americanpsyche. And behind me, the twisted and now mangled antenna that oncestood on the north tower of the World Trade Center, here at the Newseumfor all to see and remember what happened there.
President Obama visited Ground Zero this week, closing a chapter inAmerican history nearly 10 years after the 9/11 attacks. This, as theflood of information from the raid on bin Laden's Pakistan compoundcontinues to pour in.
And just yesterday, new tapes with extraordinary images of theterror mastermind seen as a graying old man watching himself ontelevision. That was one of five videos released by the Pentagon, andnow ABC's Martha Raddatz here who's followed the story every step of theway.
RADDATZ (voice-over): Of the five videos released by the Pentagon,this one is surely the most compelling. There sits the most wantedterrorist in the world covered in an old blanket with a very gray beardwatching news clips of himself on television.
He switches his satellite TV from channel to channel. When an imagepops up showing him with weapons, he motions to his camera operator tozoom in. What he is watching on the television matches a pressconference we found in late January 2010.
The other four tapes are all outtakes or messages to his followers.The audio has been removed by the U.S. because officials say it isjihadist propaganda. But notice the color of his beard. He clearly hasbeen dying it. This is 2004. Similar clothes in background. This isthe more recent tape.
PILLAR: This is someone who realized that the image that heconveyed was the main value he had to his movement. It was part of hisbrand.
RADDATZ: But last Sunday, the dye had faded. When he was shot deadby SEALs, the beard was gray. The tapes are only a small part of themassive amounts of intelligence picked up the SEALs in the compound,which intelligence analysts are calling the largest intelligence haulever from a senior terrorist.
AMANPOUR: ABC's Martha Raddatz. And she'll join me with our othercorrespondents in our roundtable in just a moment.
So is that new trove of information revealing fresh dangers forAmericans around the world? I put that question to the president'snational security adviser, Tom Donilon.
AMANPOUR: Mr. Donilon, thank you for joining us.
DONILON: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Firstly, the pictures that have just come out. You'veseen them. What do they tell us that we didn't know about Osama binLaden?
DONILON: I think the principal thing to take away is that he wasengaged not just in being a symbolic leader of Al Qaida, but he wasinvolved in the strategic and operational leadership. And let me sayjust a couple of things about this. Number one, the information wasrecovered as part of the operation of Sunday night, in addition totaking out Osama bin Laden on Sunday night, our special forces who aretrained in this area gathered up as much information as they couldbefore they left the compound.
AMANPOUR: How much?
DONILON: Well, it's a very large cache. The...
AMANPOUR: How would you describe it, in terms of its largeness?
DONILON: I've say two things about it. It's the single largestcache of information that we've gotten from a senior terrorist, numberone. And, number two, the CIA is describing it to us as the size of asmall college library.
AMANPOUR: Have you found any imminent threat right now, anythingthat should give concern right now that you're working to counter andneutralize?
DONILON: I don't have anything to tell you this morning. But as we-- as we develop those, obviously, we'll go about the notifications inthe appropriate way.
AMANPOUR: Because Al Qaida has said we accept that he's dead andwe're going to avenge that. Is there any worry, any fear, any plan thatyou know of? Are you taking any specific measures to counter anyimminent threat?
DONILON: Well, we've thought about that a lot prior to the -- priorto the action. And what I can tell you is this. And the president saidit in his address to the nation on Sunday night. This is the mostsignificant achievement we've had in our efforts against Al Qaida.
At the end of last year, we assessed and made public this assessmentthat the pressure in Al Qaida had driven them to the point where theywere as weak as they had been at any time since 2001. This is a reallyserious blow to them. It's a milestone on our way to strategic defeat.
Having said that, we need to remain vigilant, and we will remainvigilant, and we certainly had thought about that a lot prior to theactions that we took on Sunday.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you about the killing of Osama bin Laden.What was the nature of his resistance?
DONILON: He didn't surrender, right, and moved away from ourforces, right, you know? And at that point, he's a threat to ourforces, given the techniques that we know, and our forces made anabsolutely, absolutely appropriate judgment.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you this, though, because it goes to thecentral part of the story. The success of this mission, you had to, youknow, sort of correct some of the -- some of the story lines at thebeginning. You've said that the president went down and had an A-to-Zconversation with the special forces. Do you think, in retrospect,would you have done it differently? Would you have allowed thatcomplete briefing of the people who had done it before giving outinformation?
DONILON: As you know from covering many of these events, initialreports can sometimes be inaccurate, right, and need to be corrected.And as soon as the information was refined and was corrected, theadministration put that out.
You know, when I looked at the picture the other day, the famouspicture now of us in the Situation Room -- looked at it yesterday -- Iwas -- I tried to reflect on it a little bit, and my eyes went to thepresident. And we ask a tremendous amount of our presidents, includingthese kind of decisions. And this -- you know, a week ago Thursdayevening, he got his last briefing on this in the Situation Room. And hegot divided counsel, frankly.
DONILON: Absolutely. As you would expect.
AMANPOUR: Was there dissension?
DONILON: Divided counsel, people recommending different options.
AMANPOUR: Because it's been written (ph) dissension amongst the ranks.
DONILON: I wouldn't call it dissension. I would call it -- I wouldcall it -- I would call it a divided counsel, that people had -- were infavor of different options. And I've served three presidents, as youknow. And you watch the president take this in. He chaired fiveNational Security Council meetings in six weeks. Take all that in, say,I'm not going to make my decision now, I'll tell you my decisiontomorrow, stand up, walk out of the Situation Room, go down thatcolonnade that you know so well by the Rose Garden to his residence, andmake that decision.
And this is what we ask of our president. And I think in this casethe president was well served by the process, and we're well served byhis decision.
AMANPOUR: As you know, there are many in the Republican Party, manyformer Bush administration officials -- the attorney general of the Bushadministration wrote in the Wall Street Journal that, quite frankly, itwas the Bush policies that led to this success, that the enhancedinterrogation methods were pretty much the thing that led to you allfinding Osama bin Laden, and that President Obama's decision to do awaywith enhanced interrogation will mean that it will be very difficult, ifat all possible, to get these kinds of intelligence again. So do youthink then that it's -- you should reinstate harsh interrogation?
DONILON: No. And, in fact, I can't really and won't, frankly, getinto specific pieces of intelligence that led to the raid onAbbottabad. But what I will say further, though, is this, is that nosingle piece of intelligence that was gathered many years ago or in theinterim, no single piece of intelligence led to this success. It washundreds of pieces of intelligence. And that's how these cases are puttogether, as you know, over time. And it was across two administrations.
When President Obama was told that our forces were safely back inAfghanistan, the first person he called outside the White House wasPresident Bush.
AMANPOUR: How badly is your relationship with Pakistan damagedbecause of this? I mean, we've heard...
DONILON: Yes. Yes.
AMANPOUR: ... Leon Panetta, we've heard others say, I mean, theywere either incompetent or they were involved, we didn't tip them offbecause they would have tipped off the target. I mean, what are yougoing to do to restore and to -- to fix this relationship?
DONILON: Let me say two or three things about...
AMANPOUR: Actually, first I want to understand...
DONILON: Of course.
AMANPOUR: ... do you believe that elements of either the governmentor the military or the intelligence knew and harbored Osama bin Laden?
DONILON: Let me address that directly. As I sit here with you, Idon't have any information that would indicate foreknowledge by thepolitical, military, or intelligence leadership in Pakistan, point one.
Point two, though, is the fact that Osama bin Laden was living --and we now know operating -- in a town 35 miles away from Islamabad inwhat is essentially a military town of sorts, with an importantinstitution...
DONILON: ... and other military installations...
AMANPOUR: It was their West Point town.
DONILON: Yes, yeah. So questions -- and these questions, as youknow, are being raised quite aggressively in Pakistan.
AMANPOUR: Well, what are you demanding of them now?
DONILON: Yeah. And they indicated -- and out of the corecommanders' meeting that General Kayani had this past Thursday, haveindicated they're going to do an investigation. They need to do aninvestigation.
AMANPOUR: Should heads roll?
DONILON: Well, that will be up to them, with respect to their own...
AMANPOUR: But can you deal with these very people who you've had todeal with?
DONILON: Well, let's go -- let's go through that, yeah. I thinkthat -- I think, though, on this issue, we need to work with them on acouple of things. First of all, we need to know how this happened andthey need to know how this happened, if they weren't involved, right?They need to know how this happened.
Secondly, we need to work with them on assessing all the evidenceout of that compound and all of the evidence associated with Osama binLaden's presence there for six years. They have in their custody allthe noncombatants from the compound, including three wives of Osama binLaden. We've asked for access, obviously, to those -- to those folks.
They took additional materials. We talked to them first about thematerials that we had. They had additional materials. We need accessto that.
But I would be remiss if I didn't make another point. More peoplehave died, right, more terrorists have died -- have died and beencaptured, excuse me, on Pakistan soil than any place else in the world.They have been an essential partner of ours in the war against Al Qaidaand in our efforts against terrorism. And that really can't be dismissed.
This is an important relationship with the United States, so we needto assess this, Christiane, in a cool and calm way. And my job asnational security adviser is to do this in a way that advances ourinterests.
AMANPOUR: If today the president had to make that decision to goafter Zawahiri in Pakistan, would you tell the Pakistanis?
DONILON: Well, we'll have to look at the specifics of theoperation. This really wasn't a matter of trusting or not trusting; itwas a matter of operational security.
AMANPOUR: So would you do this again, then, in Pakistan, go inwithout telling them?
DONILON: It would depend on the operation, right? It would dependon the risk assessments, right? We do many, many joint operations withthe Pakistanis. This was a singular operation, a very unique operation,indeed, the most important military operation that we've undertaken in along, long time.
AMANPOUR: I have to ask you a final question.
DONILON: Of course.
AMANPOUR: You talked about the death of Osama bin Laden...
AMANPOUR: ... as a huge milestone on your mission to defeat Al Qaida.
AMANPOUR: Your Afghanistan policy is about defeating Al Qaida.
AMANPOUR: Does this mean that you will withdraw more troops?
DONILON: Well, what it means is this, that...
AMANPOUR: Because people are saying that now.
DONILON: Yeah. Yeah, I understand. It is a -- it's an importantmilestone toward strategic defeat and it's an important step towards ourachieving our goals. And the president has laid out quite clearly andworked with our allies on this that we'll begin a withdrawal in July ofX number of troops.
AMANPOUR: Will you bring more than you had expected?
DONILON: We haven't made those determinations yet, is the absolutehonest answer.
AMANPOUR: Thanks so much for joining us.
DONILON: OK, thank you.
AMANPOUR: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And you can find more of that interview with Tom Donilon,the national security adviser, online, including about the way forwardin Libya.
AMANPOUR: But right now, as we've been saying, America's alliancewith Pakistan has never been before so severely tested, and so we'regoing to ask directly now the Pakistani ambassador to the United States,Husain Haqqani.
Thank you so much for joining us.
You heard what National Security Adviser Donilon said. They have noevidence that anybody in your camp knew. But I want to know, do youcategorically deny that any member of the government, the military, orthe intelligence had any notion or was harboring Osama bin Laden?
HAQQANI: If any member of the Pakistani government, the Pakistanimilitary, or the Pakistani intelligence service knew where Osama binLaden was, we would have taken action. Osama bin Laden's presence inPakistan was not to Pakistan's advantage.
You know Pakistan well, Christiane. You were there immediatelyafter 9/11. We still have many jihadi has-beens from the 1980s who arestill alive and well and kicking, and some of them could have beenhelping them, but they are not in the state or government of Pakistantoday.
AMANPOUR: Right, but let's call a spade a spade. Osama bin Laden,number-one terrorist in the world, including against Pakistan, washiding in your West Point town. There are barriers, there are checks.Foreigners just can't go there just willy-nilly. I know that for afact, and so do others.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, KSM, was found in a similar garrison town inRawalpindi a few years ago. How can this happen without the tacitknowledge or without some kind of involvement?
HAQQANI: Let me proffer another explanation.
AMANPOUR: But that's the question.
HAQQANI: Yeah. It's a state, it's a country with lots of people.It's a very difficult country in the sense of its capacity to deal withthe problems. As the national security adviser said, a lot more peoplehave been arrested in Pakistan, including Al Qaida people, than in anyother country. So Pakistan did not have a policy of protecting thesepeople.
However, the United States spent much more money in Iraq than it didin Afghanistan. And then it spent much more money in Afghanistan thanit did in Pakistan. So were there cracks through which things fellthrough? Absolutely. And we'll investigate that; we'll get to thebottom of it.
AMANPOUR: All right. You've said that it's time for Pakistan towake up. Is there going to be a credible investigation that leads tosome heads rolling? National security adviser said that the chief ofthe military, General Kayani, was holding an investigation. Tell mewhere that investigation stands.
HAQQANI: General Kayani, of course, as you know, is an honorablesoldier who is very different from those in Pakistan who in the pasthave used their military position to try and make coups. Thecoup-makers have different worldviews than General Kayani. He and othersoldiers, professional soldiers, are as concerned about this as you andI and. And, therefore, there is an investigation ongoing. It'spremature for me to reveal the details of it. But that investigationwill lead wherever it will lead.
AMANPOUR: Will heads roll?
HAQQANI: And heads will roll, once the investigation has beencompleted. Now, if those heads are rolled on account of incompetence,we will share that information with you. And if, God forbid, somebody'scomplicity is discovered, there will be zero tolerance for that, aswell. Remember that President Obama himself said the government of theUnited States is very clear that President Zardari, Prime MinisterGilani, the chief of our army, they were certainly not amongst thepeople who should have been accused.
AMANPOUR: All right. But let me ask you this, then. You have --you've heard and you know that you have access and in custody the threewives of Osama bin Laden, the noncombatants who were found there,children included, and a lot of material. Are you interrogating them?What are they telling you?
HAQQANI: Well, we are learning things about the lives that theywere leading. Obviously, it's not very easy to interrogate smallchildren, and certainly the wives, also.
AMANPOUR: The wives.
HAQQANI: For example, we understand that one of the wives neverleft the same floor as Osama bin Laden because they were paranoid aboutphysical movement. They didn't go to windows. They didn't have anysort of fresh air, so to speak.
So all these people are, of course, being interrogated, questionsbeing asked. Pakistan wants to put to rest any, any misgivings theworld has about our role.
Be clear: We have been victims of terrorism, and we will see thisthrough, and we will share all intelligence with everyone that we haveto share this intelligence with.
AMANPOUR: Precisely, therefore, will you give them -- you talkabout sharing intelligence -- will you give the United States access tothem, as Mr. Donilon just asked for and they want? Will they haveaccess to the wives and the material?
HAQQANI: Let -- let me say this, Christiane. This is a moment forme to be very diplomatic. What we do, Mr. Donilon will know, and youwill have him on your show again in the near future. And he will...
AMANPOUR: So that's a yes?
HAQQANI: He will tell you the role of Pakistan. Let's be honest.Pakistan has a complexity in its society. We have people -- if you dopolitical opinion surveys, there are people who have sympathy with thecause of Osama bin Laden. Those of us who do not, we are targetsourselves, so we have to deal with that complex ground reality inPakistan. It's not easy for us.
AMANPOUR: This is -- you know, we hear very diplomatic words fromyou, but we hear rather a lot of bluster from Pakistan, in fact.General Kayani, even the head of the ISI has said that this must neverhappen again. If the Americans try it again, we'll take action.They're not being as -- as conciliatory as you. If the United Stateshad to go in again and do it, would that be fine by you?
HAQQANI: First of all, let's understand this. There are twoseparate...
AMANPOUR: To get Zawahiri?
HAQQANI: These are two separate questions. One is, are wecomforted by Osama bin Laden being taken out? We certainly are. Ourpresident said that; General Kayani said that. Nobody said that wedidn't want Osama bin Laden taken out. What we are offended by is theviolation of our sovereignty.
Now, we've heard the American explanation. But at the same time,try and put yourself in the position of a Pakistani leader who has to goto votes from the same people who will turn around and say, "You knowwhat? You can't protect this country from American helicopters comingin."
America has a selling job to do in Pakistan, too. Convince morePakistanis that you are more of our ally and, therefore, there would beless offense.
AMANPOUR: But right now, right now, America and you need toconvince the American taxpayer that billions of dollars still need to goto Pakistan, as they've been...
HAQQANI: Absolutely, and we are working on it. Both sides areengaged. The fact remains that in future we want to make sure that wecontinue with joint operations. As far as high-value targets areconcerned, the Americans are sharing with us what they think is the wayforward. We are giving our opinions.
But, look, Christiane, complaining and carping about Pakistan hasbeen around for as long as the Pakistani and U.S. alliance has beenaround. There have been demonstrations in Pakistan for a long time.There have been objections in Congress for a long time.
But we are allies and partners who need each other. And so, let'sbe fair, people like me sitting quietly with people like Tom Donilon arethe ones who are going to find that way forward, not the peoplescreaming on television, either in Pakistan or on the late-night showshere.
AMANPOUR: We'll keep tracking it. Ambassador Haqqani, thank youvery much, indeed, for joining us.
HAQQANI: Pleasure talking to you.
AMANPOUR: And up next, is the United States bracing for Al Qaida'srevenge? We'll get the latest information from our team of ABC Newscorrespondents.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEYERS: The White House on Tuesday revealed that Osama bin Ladenwas not armed when Navy SEALs found him, but they say he did resistthem. Hey, White House, armed, unarmed, not resisting, holding a bunny,we're totally cool with you shooting bin Laden.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: "Saturday Night Live" echoing public opinion on the storyof this week, a story that's far from over. President Obama, of course,has ruled out releasing photographic proof of bin Laden's death, but onekey constituency seems to need no convincing. Al Qaida acknowledgestheir leader is no more and vows revenge on Americans.
So joining me to assess the threat and take stock of this incredibleweek, the ABC correspondents who've been covering this story: seniorWhite House correspondent Jake Tapper, chief foreign correspondentMartha Raddatz, and justice correspondent Pierre Thomas.
Thank you all. What a week it has been. I want to go to you first,because everybody is worried about this so-called treasure trove andwhat it might be telling us. We've tried to get from Donilon and fromHaqqani exactly what is out there. Is there anything out there that weshould be worried about right now?
THOMAS: There's no specific imminent threat that they've found.But I can tell you what they're most concerned about. Right now, themost immediate threat they are worried about are so-called lone wolves,people who've been typically radicalized on the Internet who have beensympathizing with Al Qaida, those are the people who might show up at amall and start shooting. So that's the first level of threat.
The second level of threat is Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, AlQaida in Yemen, if you will. They're led by the radical clear Anwaral-Awlaki. The fear is that that group wants to get on the scoreboard.They tried to attack the United States with the Christmas 2009...
AMANPOUR: The underwear bombing plan.
THOMAS: ... underwear bombing, and then they followed it up ninemonths later with the parcel bomb attack out of Yemen, as well, so theconcern is that they will try to do something very quickly. The thirdlevel of threat is Al Qaida central, but right now they think that thoseleaders are running for cover, literally.
AMANPOUR: So, Martha, Awlaki in Yemen. There was a missile strikethis week. Are they actually trying to get him? And do they know wherehe is?
RADDATZ: I think there was not a link between the intelligence theygathered in Pakistan from bin Laden's compound and the strike on Awlaki.
AMANPOUR: Too soon?
RADDATZ: Too soon. I think you just can't get it that fast. Theyhad troves of this to go through. So I don't think that had anything todo with it, but it shows you how aggressive they are being in Yemennow. They've increased the number of drones. They've armed the numberof drones. That was a military drone strike. They just missed him. Soas much as they would like to get on the map right now, I'm sure Awlakiis completely running scared.
AMANPOUR: And, Jake, the White House, this has been a massivesuccess for President Obama, for American intelligence. What is thenext thing on their agenda? What are they thinking about right now interms of what they found, of what they need to do going forward?
TAPPER: Well, first of all, there's cooperation with the Pakistanigovernment. And the message -- despite anger, legitimate anger on somelevels and disbelief that how could the Pakistanis not have known aboutthis, the message being conveyed is, look, we're sure that you're assurprised as we are, so let's work together...
AMANPOUR: Is that a deliberate public message to get them on side...
TAPPER: Yes, absolutely.
AMANPOUR: ... and not defensive?
TAPPER: ... absolutely, so that they work together. Let's worktogether so that we can, for once and for all, defeat Al Qaida, and thatis the approach being taken.
AMANPOUR: I mean, we've heard Ambassador Haqqani talk about that,and everybody is saying that they have suffered so many deaths, aswell. But, you know, for years it seems they've been speaking out ofboth sides of their mouth.
AMANPOUR: So what can the administration do to end this, to stop this?
TAPPER: Try to convince behind the scenes the Pakistanis that theyhave to stop this. But there is very little sense in doing it in apublic way so that the Pakistanis feel like they have to.
I mean, just remember all the diplomacy behind the scenes going onwhen the CIA contractor, Ray Davis, was in prison. There is a bigdifference between what is said publicly and what is said privately.And what is said privately right now is different than the publicmessage. But the idea is, we need to do this together, now's the timeto stop double-dealing.
RADDATZ: And we really need them more than ever. As much as youcan tell them what to do -- and we've been telling them over and overand over, you've got to do more, you've got to do more, it is still afine line. The Pakistanis are embarrassed right now. They'reembarrassed that they found bin Laden right under their noses. But weneed them.
AMANPOUR: Because of the war in Afghanistan.
RADDATZ: We need them to -- but we also need them in Pakistan.This is not over. We need the intelligence. Whatever they provided inthe past, they have to keep doing that.
THOMAS: But, Christiane, this is so complicated. I had a seniorofficial talk about the fact that there's evidence that's going to comeout of a trial, federal trial in Chicago, that will show or suggeststrongly that the Pakistani intelligence, the ISI, had a role in theMumbai attack. So there are going to be serious questions raised about,how much can we really trust them?
TAPPER: Not just -- and not just that the ISI had a role in theMumbai attack, but the ISI was behind the Mumbai attack, specificallythe idea of targeting Westerners and targeting the rabbi that was killedthere in the Lubavitch Center was an American rabbi, and the idea thatthe ISI was behind that, and that -- this is the David Headley case.This is going to be very important.
THOMAS: And two things to point out. The Times Square bombingoriginated Pakistan. The attack that they were planning on the UnitedStates 2009, September 14th, around the anniversary of 9/11, alsooriginated in Pakistan.
AMANPOUR: So tell me, Pierre, about the -- you were talking aboutthe lone wolf, but also about what seems to have come out, that Osamabin Laden was very interested in not just financial and other warfareagainst the United States, but class warfare, racial tensions, stirringthat up, as well.
THOMAS: I spoke to officials Friday who were just stunned at thelevel of expertise and thoughtfulness that bin Laden and Al Qaida putinto how to break down the American society, not just to kill people.They talked about ways in which to recruit minorities to do some ofthese attacks, the notion to get Americans thinking about each other,looking at each other in strange ways, so that was part of the plan, aswell.
AMANPOUR: And, Martha, let's go back to those pictures,unbelievable pictures.
RADDATZ: Incredible, incredibly compelling, watching this old mansit there huddled in that old blanket, watching himself on television.
AMANPOUR: It really beggars belief that he was so intimatelyinvolved, as we're now being told. Why do they -- do you know what theymight have -- the audio they might have silenced? Do you have anyreporting on what that audio that his last message was going to say?
RADDATZ: Well, I think -- I think his audio on all those weregenerally the same as they've always been. It's a jihadist message.It's, "Attack America. America is bad." So that was generally the same.
I think what's extraordinary -- and we talked about this a littleearlier in the piece about dyeing his beard, how important his image wasto him. I mean, that little den you saw there was a command-and-controlcenter. He was involved strategically, tactically, operationally.That's new information.
I mean, you remember President Bush saying, oh, we don't even worryabout him anymore. I mean, for years and years and years, they thoughthe was hiding in a cave, really not running this organization, and heclearly was.
THOMAS: One official called him the head coach.
AMANPOUR: The head coach, indeed.
RADDATZ: A really nasty coach.
AMANPOUR: What was the most startling, revealing bit of this storyall week? What was the most significant?
TAPPER: I was just surprised, as a White House correspondent, thishas been going on since August. August is when they first got thetip-off. And then from August until Sunday, it is amazing that thissecret was kept. And this is -- it's not just the Obama White House,but every White House leaks. Every administration leaks. Our...
RADDATZ: The FBI director did not even know. The FBI director...
TAPPER: Our livelihoods depend on it.
TAPPER: You know, we're happy for those leaks. I don't mean tobad-mouth leaks. But it is amazing how closely held this secret was.The FBI director didn't know about it. There are a lot of seniorofficials in Afghanistan, including...
RADDATZ: General Petraeus...
TAPPER: ... General Petraeus did not know.
AMANPOUR: Until just before, right?
RADDATZ: Until just before. I mean, they just wanted that closehold, because the more people you tell, the more people...
TAPPER: If I could say one other point, because you asked theambassador about this. The reason why the U.S. did not tell thePakistanis about this mission is the same reason why the U.S. doesn'ttell the Pakistanis before Predator drone attacks: because they willtip off the bad guys.
It was U.S. policy to alert the Pakistani government before a droneattack. That changed in the Bush administration. That changed, becausethey couldn't trust them anymore.
RADDATZ: Yes, trust and operational security are the same thing.
AMANPOUR: The most extraordinary thing for you?
RADDATZ: How little security bin Laden had around himself. Andjust one little detail. My favorite detail of the week was that theSEALs didn't have a tape measure with them, and Osama bin Laden issix-foot-four. So one of the SEALs had to lie down next to him to tryto figure out how tall he was.
AMANPOUR: President Obama apparently said, we spent $60 million ona helicopter, but we couldn't buy a tape measure.
AMANPOUR: Last word?
THOMAS: Two things. One, a young person said the notion that Osamabin Laden was chilling out in the 'burbs of Pakistan was just amazing.
I think the other thing that struck me was this notion of thestudents coming out and celebrating outside of the White House. It wasa reminder of how 9/11 put a dagger in the heart of this country andthat a lot of people thought that retribution was deserved. And whenthey got it, they expressed it.
AMANPOUR: And how we had all been living with this for so long.
Jake, Martha, Pierre, thank you so much, indeed.
And up next, Condoleezza Rice with a stern message for Pakistan.
AMANPOUR: As we heard from Tom Donilon, George W. Bush was thefirst person outside the White House to be informed of Osama bin Laden'sdeath. The former president was invited, but declined to attendThursday's ceremony at Ground Zero, but his closest aides were breathinga very public sigh of relief this week.
I spoke with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about thismilestone and about America's newly fraught relationship with Pakistan.
AMANPOUR: Pakistan, did they just mess up? Are they justcompletely unreliable, clueless?
RICE: Well, I have to say that the biggest surprise in this for me-- I was not surprised that we got him. I knew we would eventually gethim. I was surprised where we found him. The idea that he could be ina suburb, essentially, of Islamabad is quite remarkable. And soPakistan has some very hard questions to answer, and this isn't a timefor bluster from Pakistan.
AMANPOUR: You say you were surprised that he was found in thatsuburb. And even last year, Leon Panetta told ABC, the director of theCIA, that he thought that bin Laden was in a cave. This cave ofmythology became conventional wisdom.
RICE: Yes. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Did you really think that?
AMANPOUR: That he was in this cave?
RICE: Yes. Yes, we really did, or in a tribal area. Remember, thetribal areas are not just caves. There are villages in the tribalareas. And so there was some sense that he might be protected withinone of the villages, which were fairly hard to get to and fiercelyprotective of their sovereignty (ph). And so I think the cave was a bitof a metaphor for where he was.
AMANPOUR: Who is it who's responsible for not knowing that Osamabin Laden is hiding right there in a military base, just about?
RICE: Well, I think it is entirely possible -- and I think probable-- that high-ranking people didn't know. But if this happens in yourcountry, you have an obligation to find out and to do a thoroughinvestigation and to punish anybody who might have been responsible.That would be a very important message.
I remember going to Pakistan shortly after the Mumbai bombings. AndI remember saying to the chief of staff, to the prime minister, to thepresident, what happened in Mumbai had to have had support of thesophisticated apparatus of Pakistani military and intelligence. It hadto have. And so don't hide behind the fact that you don't know or youdon't believe it. That's the kind of conversation that I think needs totake place with Pakistan right now.
AMANPOUR: You can find more of that interview with Condoleezza Riceat abcnews.com.
And so what does the future hold for America and Pakistan? Joiningme to tackle that one, our powerhouse roundtable, ABC's George Will, LizCheney, the former deputy assistant secretary of state and co-founder ofthe group Keep America Safe, Tom Ricks, who writes the Best Defense blogfor Foreign Policy magazine, and Lawrence Wright of the New Yorker, whotracked the rise of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida in his book "TheLooming Tower."
Thank you all for joining us. Clearly, the story of the week is binLaden is dead and Pakistan is in the hot seat. Around the table, who isshocked and horrified to think that Pakistan is saying it didn't know?And who really believes that Pakistan didn't know?
WILL: Well, neither, in this case. Pakistan we knew going in is ahouse divided against itself. And as Americans know, a house dividedagainst itself must become one thing or another eventually. And thequestion is, how is there -- is there close to a tipping point? Is itmore healthy than unhealthy? That's a question we have to answer.
But the stakes are enormous. We're in Afghanistan only because ofPakistan. If it weren't next door to Pakistan, we wouldn't be there.
CHENEY: Well, I think that it is surprising that he was 35 milesfrom Islamabad. I think it's unclear whether anybody in the Pakistanigovernment was supporting him, was helping him. We've had someadministration officials suggest it's impossible that bin Laden couldhave been there for this long without some kind of a support network.
But I do think it's very important, as we hold Pakistan accountable,as we push them hard for the names of anybody in the ISI who may havebeen in contact with bin Laden, that we not forget, you know, George'spoint about the stakes, that we cannot afford to walk away.
We walked away once at the end of the 1980s, and we saw whathappened. We cannot afford for Afghanistan to become a safe haven. Wecan't afford for Pakistan to become a safe haven, with over 100 nuclearweapon, 170 Muslims (ph). I think it's very important that we deal withthis relationship in a very well-advised way going forward and not jumpto the conclusion that we've got to walk away.
AMANPOUR: Tom, you have a different point of view on this.
RICKS: I do, and I'm actually kind of surprised to find myself tothe right of Liz Cheney.
CHENEY: It's a very nice place to be.
RICKS: I actually think we're going to have to see a major changein U.S.-Pakistani relations. This game of Charlie Brown and thefootball that we've played with them for decades, I think the jig isup. I don't think the American people will stand for it.
I think the elites in Washington, the administration, Congress, andLiz Cheney, I think, are behind the mood of the American people ortrailing the mood of the American people. I don't think Congress isgoing to stand for giving $4 billion a year to a country that is actinglike an enemy.
AMANPOUR: Lawrence Wright, I think you feel somewhat the same way.But to play devil's advocate, doesn't Pakistan kind of have the U.S.over a barrel? It does have all those nuclear weapons. It does andremains instrumental to what's happening in Afghanistan. How can theU.S. extricate itself from Afghanistan without Pakistan?
WRIGHT: It is kind of nuclear extortion, is something we're goingto have to deal with for the rest of our history. And we're alreadyseeing in North Korea. That's our relationship now in Pakistan.
Well, keep in mind our fear that they're going to sell this nuclearsecrets to our worst enemies has already happened. They sold it toNorth Korea, Pakistan, and Libya...
WRIGHT: ... Iran. They opened up negotiations with Al Qaida in1998. So the things that we're worried about have already -- our moneyisn't protecting us. Our special relationship with Pakistan hasn'tprovided any immunity from that kind of behavior.
AMANPOUR: What do they need to do? We asked Ambassador Haqqani.We asked National Security Adviser Donilon. What actually do they needto do that will satisfy the United States and that will create a realchange in behavior?
CHENEY: You know, we saw in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, whenthe U.S. government really gave them a choice and said to them, look,you need to decide where you're going to line up here, and I think thatit's important that the Pakistanis understand the message that theAmerican people are demanding to know that now.
Nobody is happy with the fact that bin Laden was captured, waskilled inside Pakistan. But I think that those things that Larry andthat Tom mention as concerns will be more of a concern if we simply walkaway. If you have an extremist government, for example, take over inPakistan -- and they actually control that arsenal of nuclear weapons --that's clearly not in America's interests. So we've got to stay engaged.
AMANPOUR: Let's talk about Afghanistan. Even before this death,some two-thirds of the American people were no longer supporting the warin Afghanistan. As you've heard, so many people are saying now you'vedecapitated the snake, it's time to get out of Afghanistan. How long doyou think that will last or will that grow, those calls to reduce inAfghanistan?
WILL: Well, it's our longest war now, it's 10 years old, longest inour national history. Do the arithmetic. There are 140,000 coalitionforces there. There are at the top estimate about 100 Al Qaida fightersthere. That's 1,400 soldiers at a million dollars per a year, $1.4billion per Al Qaida fighter. The arithmetic doesn't make sense.
The point is, we're not in there for Al Qaida. We say we are, butwe're not. We're there because we think in some sense this is crucialto the stability of Pakistan, about which we wouldn't care half as muchas we do if they didn't have nuclear weapons, so it all comes back tothat.
AMANPOUR: So what -- you've been a lot to Afghanistan. How doesone get out of there? And does the death of bin Laden significantlyaffect the war there?
RICKS: As a matter of fact, I used to be in the ski patrol inAfghanistan when I lived there. I think what you can do is go the waythat Vice President Biden has been talking about for a long time, whichis go from a conventional footprint of 140,000 troops down to a muchsmaller footprint of about 20,000 special operators and support troops.
If you do that, you remove the ability of Pakistan to extort from usbecause they stand on our supply line. You can't supply 140,000 troopsby air. You can supply 20,000 by air and through Central Asia.
AMANPOUR: And, Lawrence, we've been talking a lot about and tryingto get our heads around how devastated is Al Qaida by the death of Osamabin Laden. Is it still a force?
WRIGHT: It's still a force, but it's at a mortal moment. It wasalready in trouble. It had divided leadership. It was under -- inhiding, obviously, but the -- inside Al Qaida, there's going to be astruggle, because Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two and the guy who'slikely to be the successor, is a very polarizing figure and he'santi-charismatic. He doesn't have any of the mystique that bin Laden had.
There are all these affiliate, though, that will continue to rununder the Al Qaida flag, but basically most of them have nationalistagendas, not international, as Al Qaida central had. And I suspectyou'll see a lot of centrifugal force pulling those organizations away.
AMANPOUR: We'll take that up in the next bit of our roundtable.And up next, what is Al Qaida without Osama bin Laden? Our roundtabletackles the new threat and whether waterboarding should return to theAmerican playbook.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: (OFF-MIKE) the reason I'm call you is to tell you we killed-- we killed...
OBAMA: Tonight, I can report to the American people and to theworld, the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osamabin Laden, the leader of Al Qaida.
Good job, national security team. Thank you. Yeah, I'm proud ofyou. You guys did a great job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Images released by the White House behind the scenes asthe president and his top aides react to the death of Osama bin Laden.Up next, I'll ask our roundtable whether his death gives new life to theargument over harsh interrogation of terror suspects.
AMANPOUR: Obama administration officials acknowledged this weekthat, yes, techniques like waterboarding did, in fact, yield fruitfulinformation in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Still, they questionwhether that same information could have been obtained through othermeans. This week's events have reignited this heated debate.
So what do you think? Should they come back again, theseinterrogation techniques? Because even Leon Panetta said some of thesesuspects had been interrogated in that way.
RICKS: I never thought I'd live in a country where we would debatewhether we should endorse torture as an official policy. Was someinformation obtained through torture? Probably yeah. Could it havebeen obtained through more professional methods the intelligenceprofessionals recommended? Almost certainly yes. We could have gottenit sooner and better.
Also, what we know is that the use of torture became the primerecruiting tool for Al Qaida and for insurgents in Iraq, and so directlyresulted in the death of American troops.
AMANPOUR: Liz, does this reignite this debate as to whether theseenhanced interrogation techniques work and should be brought back?
CHENEY: I think it does. I think the fact that you clearly havethe current CIA director saying that part of the intelligence came fromenhanced interrogation, it's important to remember, you know, ChipBurlingame, who was the pilot on American Airlines Flight 77 that flewinto the Pentagon, he himself was subjected to these techniques when hewent through SERE training.
These are not torture. These are techniques that we know work.That debate is over. It worked. It got the intelligence. It wasn'ttorture. It was legal.
It seems to me the key question now is, we've got this trove ofintelligence, what looks to have been perhaps the biggest trove we'veever been able to get a hold of. If that leads us to other Al Qaidaoperatives, it's not clear to me that we have any way to effectivelyinterrogate them. We don't have enhanced interrogation anymore. Weread people their Miranda rights. We are not detaining people atGuantanamo anymore. We're not detaining people in the secret prisonsites. It's not clear to me what the administration will be able to doto get this information.
AMANPOUR: George, what do you think it says about that policy? Andwhat does this death of bin Laden, what they seem to have found rightnow, say about what he was planning, what Al Qaida was planning?
WILL: Well, with regard to enhanced interrogation, it's anunanswerable question, could we have got it another way? Perhaps yes.We don't know. We know that we got it in part using enhancedinterrogation. So going forward, that's another matter.
What it tells us about Al Qaida, Al Qaida had this vaultingambitions, a caliphate from Indonesia to Spain. Now, with the waves ofmodernity sweeping the Middle East, there sits this old man with a TVremote, and the New York Times reported early on that one of thenotebooks, handwritten in his handwriting, I gather, his project was toderail an American train on a bridge, perhaps coinciding with the Stateof the Union address. You don't build a caliphate derailing Americantrains. It's a pathetic ambition.
AMANPOUR: So are they kind of pathetic? I know everybody isworried. People want to know whether there are any real threats toAmerican interests and other interests out there. Was Osama bin Ladenreally, really the mastermind still, as the narrative is telling usright now, organizing, operating?
WRIGHT: It's very hard to imagine that in that compound where yousee how pathetic it was and how carefully controlled the entry was tohave it as a nerve center. It seems -- it stretches the imagination.
I think the fact is, Al Qaida hasn't been able to operate very wellfor the last eight years, and bin Laden has probably not been aninfluence. I think that, really, the organization has been running moreor less without him, and not running very well.
AMANPOUR: And let's talk about George's point. You know, the ArabSpring, the modernity that's sweeping the Islamic world, is that thedeath of bin Ladenism? Is that what we're looking at, killing hisdream, basically?
CHENEY: I think I was struck as George was. You know, if you thinkabout the incredible information revolution and the fact that you'vegot, you know, young people standing in Tahrir Square holding up asmartphone saying, you know, this is my weapon, juxtaposed with binLaden sitting, you know, with a little teeny television set with wirescoming out of it, it looks like 1970s technology.
What's happening across the Arab world, I think, does begin tosignal the end of Al Qaida's aspirations. I think it's too soon to saythat they've been diminished as a threat. Certainly, Al Qaida in theArabian Peninsula, al-Awlaki are still threats, still attempting toattack the United States. But the Middle East and the Arab world seemto be moving on, and bin Laden's death certainly is part of that.
AMANPOUR: Tom, what do you think about where the real people aregoing? Are they ripe for recruiting as everybody feared before?
RICKS: No, I think Lawrence's sense that they are an organizationwith a past is correct. I was struck recently looking at a poll done inYemen and found Al Qaida was more popular among older people, 30s, 40s,50s, than it was with people in their teens and 20s.
AMANPOUR: That is one of the remarkable things. In all thesecountries where Pew has taken a recent poll, both bin Laden himself andAl Qaida's popularity has been plummeting.
Last question to you, because you've been very critical of PresidentObama, and you suggest that he's been up to the task of nationalsecurity. Would you take that back now?
CHENEY: I still have big concerns about some of his policies, but Icertainly think that America is safer, the world is safer when themessage is, if you kill 3,000 American, the Navy SEALs are going to puta bullet in your head. So I would give President Obama credit formaking that tough decision.
AMANPOUR: On that note, thank you all very much.
And up next, the toll that this one man has taken on the UnitedStates and the world. Sorrow and sacrifice by the numbers when "ThisWeek" continues.
AMANPOUR: We'll always remember where we are were on that terribleday nearly 10 years ago, and newspapers around this country and aroundthe world told the story. But the real impact lies not in theheadlines, but in the numbers: 2,976 people were killed on 9/11. Sincethen, twice as many American troops have died fighting the wars onterror, 6,002 servicemen and women.
This week, the Pentagon released the names of five soldiers killedin Iraq and Afghanistan.
And, of course, thousands of people around the world have alsofallen victim to acts of terror sponsored, planned, and applauded byOsama bin Laden.
I'll be right back with a closing thought in a moment.
AMANPOUR: Today is Mother's Day. And as I stand before the twistedantenna of the Twin Towers, I'm struck by what children have told meabout that terrible morning, children who are visiting this exhibit.They spoke of their mothers, some standing strong, others dissolvinginto tears on that day, 9/11, children as young as five with such vividmemories still.
I also think of the mothers who were killed that day and in all thewars that have followed and of those who have been left behind to raisefamilies on their own. Our thoughts are with all of them today.
That's it for our program. For all of us here at "This Week," thankyou for watching, and see you next week.