First off, some basics. I have no doubt Osama bin Laden is dead as a doornail and that the Seal team did it. I also believe that the mission was to kill him on sight, period, along with anyone who got in the way. There is no way the U.S. wanted him back here on trial in NYC with a dozen ACLU lawyers defending him and ranting about warrants. I also believe there was virtually no resistance and what "firefight" there was was pretty much unidirectional. I also believe there was no concern for collateral damage which is why the lady doctor was killed in the--again--unidirectional "crossfire". The evidence for this is that only two weapons were found, a pistol and an AK-47, and only the AK-47 had been fired--once, apparently by one of the two men--one who was the famous courier--who were also killed.

Many heads are spinning, mine included, with the blizzard of changeling accounts from the administration issued by various spokespeople and finally POTUS himself. Hence the first question. If the White House was intimately involved in this operation, as we are led to believe by the Prez and others, why all the tangled accounts? One might think they were caught with their pants around their ankles. Actually, I believe that is exactly the case. I don't believe for a minute that this was a White House-directed operation. From the beginning, I just did not see this as an Obama-like operation; it is just out of character for our fledgeling president.

So, what is "the rest of the story?" Well, the honest answer is I don't really know. However, I recently received via email a detailed account of this operation over the printed "signature" of a retired Marine Colonel with the unlikely name of Adolf P. Sgambelluri, who really exists and who runs a private intelligence service based in Guam, called Investigations Agency International Corporation. It is quite a story which, I must admit, rings true for me although I am unable to authenticate it fully to my satisfaction. I checked the IAIC web site and could not find a reference to the report, which bothers me.

In summary, the account claims this was a CIA operation planned under the authority of Leon Panetta, supported by Hillary Clinton (SECSTATE), Robert Gates (SECDEF), Gen. David Petraeus and (Director of National Security-DNS) James Clapper throughout. The White House, in the person of Senior Presidential Advisor Valerie Jarrett, opposed this operation from the git-go. President Obama was only peripherally aware and was very much uninvolved until the operation was underway. The initial plan was to bomb the compound but was changed to a manned assault to minimize possible collateral damage since the occupants of the compound, other than bin Laden, were not known.

Our esteemed President, predictably, is parading around the country giving campaign speeches with OBL's body draped around his shoulders, taking, or at least implying, full credit for "getting the guy that previous administrations couldn't." Way to go, Rambo!

With respect to the Pakistani government's involvement, or lack of same, there is simply no credibility to the idea that they were completely unaware of this white-elephant fortified villa in the midst of a military community. They knew he was there and purposefully turned a blind eye, if in fact not proactively providing cover. However, since we need them, they will get nothing more than 40 lashes with a diplomatic wet noodle. Ah, the exigencies of international power politics.

There has been much speculation as to how much intelligence was obtained through CIA "enhanced" interrogation of al Qaeda-related captives at overseas detention centers. I suspect that certainly some intelligence was so obtained from the likes of "20th hijacker" Mohammed al-Khatani, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Zacarias Moussaoui, which aided in the identification of bin Laden's trusted courier, Abu Ahmad al Kuwaiti, which eventually led to bin Laden's villa at Abbottabad, Pakistan. How much intelligence and how useful is debatable, but certainly most of the key intelligence was obtained by the CIA, and from whom else would they have got it? However, I am not among those who would give George W. Bush the major credit. That belongs to the CIA under Obama appointee Leon Panetta, who incidently has proven to be a very effective DCI (Director of Central Intelligence).

The assassination of Osama bin Laden without a doubt is a good thing and brings some degree of closure to the 9/11 World Trade Center outrage. At the same time, it appears pretty certain that Osama was essentially irrelevent to the operations of today's decentralized al Qaeda. I get the picture of a disenchanted, sick old man sitting nearly alone in a huge fortified mausoleum, playing at plotting nostalgic 9/11-style terrorist attacks on the "Great Satan."

It's just too bad that the issue has to be confused by spin and obfuscation in an attempt to gain maximum political mileage from a very well executed CIA wet operation, with a major salute to the Navy Seal team who actually did the dirty deed. It's comforting to know that in that foggy world across the Potomac, we still can plan and pull off complex clandestine operations.

Of course, only by keeping the Obama White House largely in the dark.

There have been numerous media references questioning the purpose of the recount in the Supreme Court (WI) race between JoAnne Kloppenburg and incumbent David Prosser. I have to admit similar confusion. Everyone seems to agree that there is no chance of shifting the election results back to Kloppenburg.

However, I have a principle that says, in politics, if something doesn't make sense, you aren't looking at it from the right perspective. In other words, everything makes sense to someone.There is a second principle I subscribe to that states that nothing in the realm of politics is as it seems. Applying these principles and taking as wide a perspective as possible, a sensible scenario began to take shape. I now believe it is the only credible explanation of the thinking behind this seeming exercise in futility.

Kloppenburg's people have alluded to the possibility of a court challenge to the validity of the election. This seems to also have the chances of the proverbial snowball in that hot place. Well, maybe not. Recall that a Madison judge, Maryann Sumi, has already ruled against the acceptance of Gov. Walker's budget repair bill based on open meetings requirements. Her final judgement may go either way, but seems to be leaning in favor of the plaintiffs. Thus, the bill, which eliminates most public service union collective bargaining rights and which is considered a dire threat by organized labor, my very well be invalidated.

The Waukesha County recount has been greatly delayed, mainly due to questions raised by the very expensive team of lawyers in the Kloppenburg camp. In fact, a very large sum has been spent, most likely from union dues, in support of this recount, and continues to be expended. The idea that this is all being done in a clearly futile effort to reverse the election results is simply not credible.

So, what is really going on here. I have considered the options and have concluded that only one scenario makes any sense. The major issue here is not the election of JoAnn Kloppengurg to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. That is clearly a done deal for the incumbent, David Prosser. The real issue is the collective bargaining issue in Scott Walker's so-called budget repair bill. This legislation, while passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor, is under a legal cloud due to an action in the Dane County court of Judge Maryann Sumi. The Walker folks and the Republican legislators have clearly ticked her off by defying her original injunction against implementation of the bill, an unwise tactic.

Walker's bill clearly diminishes the power of the public service unions who are presently the only shining star in the union firmament. If Walker succeeds in pulling their teeth, other states are poised to follow Wisconsin's lead, potentially creating a domino effect across the nation. Since these unions are stalwart Democrat supporters, there is clearly much at stake for many players. I believe this is the real issue in the Kloppenburg election affair.

The original concept was to bounce Prosser and replace him with a Dane County liberal, thus shifting the present 4-3 conservative tilt on the Supreme Court to liberal. The budget repair bill issue will likely end up before the Supreme Court, especially subsequent to a decision unfriendly to the Walker camp by Judge Sumi. The hope was that the now-liberal Supreme Court would support the lower court's decision.

When the election results tilted markedly to Prosser's side by a clearly unsurmountable margin, the plan changed from the defeat of Prosser to neutralization of the Supreme Court. Here's how. The unions and the Democrats who need them would demand a recount. Kloppenburg was simply the means of implementation. (I suspect JoAnne was promised future support of some sort.) The tactic was to create a delay by demanding a futile recount, dragging it out as long as possible and establishing the basis for a further delaying court challenge of the inevitable result.

By delaying the official certification of the re-election of David Prosser to after August 1st, the end of Prosser's term, the court would be short one conservative justice, creating the potential of a 3-3 deadlock on the budget repair bill issue, which would then affirm the lower court's decision and presumably invalidate the passage of the bill.

The second element in the plan is the recall efforts against Republican senators. If enough of them succeed, and it would take only three, the Senate would switch to Democrat control, effectively blocking re-passage of the budget repair bill and preserving the status quo. Thus, Governor Walker's attempt to weaken the power of the public service unions would fail and other states presumably would be discouraged from trying the same thing.

The only fly in their ointment is the fact that at present only six Republican recall petitions have been certified along with three Democrat. If this holds, then the Democrat-union coalition would need to win half of the Republican recall elections and all the Democrat recalls, or the equivalent, to flip the Senate, which is not impossible but a bit unlikely. Therefore, it is possible that they will not pursue the court challenge to the election recount as being too much of a long shot.

One can only hope.

NOTE: The last paragraph (not the one-liner) was significantly edited to correct an error on my part. Sorry for any confusion.