Indianapolis Colts will play their AFC South foes twice each, and also the Baltimore Ravens and Green Bay Packers

The Indianapolis Colts play every team from the AFC North and AFC North, as well as each AFC South foe twice, the New York Jets and Las Vegas Raiders.

Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson are playing for COVID-19 relief on May 24.

Frank Reich has worked hard to find ways to teach the Colts virtually, including bringing in an NBA legend to inspire the team.

How important are counting stats for quarterbacks? How important is winning in the postseason? Those are the questions about Rivers.

Leonard has made 284 tackles, 12 sacks and seven interceptions in his first two years, but says he only met 3 or 4 of his 15 goals last year.

The Indianapolis Colts start and finish the 2020 season against the Jacksonville Jaguars; the Colts are on the road to start the year and at home to finish it.

Jack Doyle can't get on the field with his new teammates but that hasn't stopped him from forging relationships.

Rivers has been named the coach in waiting at St. Michael Catholic High School in Fairhope, according to an AL.com report.

The only time Indianapolis will be in prime time will be a Thursday night showdown with the rival Tennessee Titans. At their place in Nashville.

प्रदूषण का स्तर पहले से भी ज़्यादा बढ़ सकता है. ख़तरा भी जाने कैसे, देखिए कवर स्टोरी में

AMERICA FIRST: PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHDRAWS FROM THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD Christi Gibson, June 2, 2017 President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord undoubtedly puts the interests of American workers first. From the beginning, the agreement clearly undermined U.S. competitiveness and jobs, extracted meaningless commitments from the world’s […]

DES MOINES-Iowa Firearms Coalition President Barry Snell shared their mission of protecting Second Amendment Rights for Iowans at the Bull Moose Club luncheon in Des Moines on Tuesday.  He explained how the IFC was formed and gave an update on their legislative achievements since their formation in 2010. “IFC got […]

  OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR Governor Kim Reynolds « Lt. Governor Adam Gregg FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 CONTACT: Brenna Smith, (515) 281-5211 Gov. Reynolds sets Iowa House District 82 special election for August 8 (DES MOINES) – Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a proclamation Wednesday setting the date […]

Christi Gibson June 23, 2017 CEDAR RAPIDS- On Wednesday, June 21, 2017, President Donald J Trump visited Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to address his efforts to foster agriculture innovation. The audience consisted of over 200 dignitaries, farmers, and industrial businessmen within Iowa and other states. He spoke […]

Christi Gibson June 28, 2017 DES MOINES- With health insurance premiums on the rise and deductibles skyrocketing, not to mention the majority of insurance companies in Iowa abandoning the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), Iowans are growing increasingly concerned about healthcare for themselves and their family members. The impending vote on […]

We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that brings us together as Americans. Racism is evil, and those who cause violence, in its name, are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and any other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as […]

After a court acquittal former Labor Secretary, Ray Donovan, was famously quoted as saying, “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?” I’ve chosen pursuits that have put me under a microscope for public scrutiny. I was an Army Officer and after leaving the service I got […]

Although it hasn’t actually happened yet, the odds are strong that the Korean War may be finally coming to an end.  New information has come to light that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has been meeting secretly with China’s President Xi Jinping shortly before the planned summit meetings with President […]

2020-03-23 -

2020-03-27 -

2020-03-30 -

2020-04-07 -

2020-04-08 -

2020-04-09 -

2020-04-14 -

İngilizce'de kesme işareti en fazla hata yapılan noktalama işaretlerinden birisi. Bu yeni oyunda amacınız, size verilen ifadeleri, sürenz dolmadan kesme işaretini doğru şekilde kullanarak kısaltabilmek.

BBC, kurumsal değerlerinin temelini oluşturan yayın ilkelerini kamuoyuyla Türkçe olarak paylaşmak için 'BBC Yayın İlkeleri Kılavuzu – BBC'nin Değerleri ve Standartları' adıyla yayınladı.

BBC Türkçe Servisi tarafından hazırlanan özel haberleri, ayrıntılı değerlendirmeleri, farklı konularda uzman konuklarla yapılan özel röportajları internet üzerinden bir kez daha dinlemek için tıklayın.

Iraklı Kürtler, özerk Kürt bölgesine yeni bir başkan ve parlamento seçmek üzere yarın sandık başına gidiyor. Irak Cumhurbaşkanı Celal Talabani seçimlere ilişkin BBC'nin sorularını yanıtladı.

BBC Türkçe Servisi'nin radyo yayınları için hazırladığı dizileri ve bu programlar hakkında kısa bilgileri internet kullanıcılarımıza aktarmak amacıyla hazırladığımız sayfalara ulaşmak için tıklayın.

İranlı yetkililer, muhalefetin devam eden yoğun çağrıları sonrası tartışmalı cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimlerinde gözaltına alınan 140 muhalefet taraftarını kefaletle serbest bıraktı.

Yunanistan güvenlik güçlerinin, gözaltına aldıkları sığınmacıları Türkiye sınırına doğru sürdükleri ve Meriç nehrinden Türkiye'ye geçmeye zorladıkları iddia edildi.

İngiltere'de insan hakları eylemcileri, CIA'in 'olağanüstü nakil' olarak bilinen uygulamasında İngiliz hükümetinin oynadığı iddia edilen rolün açıklanması için mahkemeye gitti.

Venezuela lideri Hugo Chavez, sınır komşusu Kolombiya'daki büyükelçisini geri çekeceğini ve iki ülke arasındaki ilişkilerin dondurulacağını açıkladı. Kolombiya, Caracas'ı FARC'a silah temin etmekle suçlamıştı.

Nijerya, ülkenin kuzeyinde hafta sonu başlayan ve 100 kişinin ölümüne neden olan isyan hareketini bastırmaya çalışıyor. Ordu, radikal İslamcıların üslendiği Maiduguri kentini topçu ateşine tuttu.

Norfolk, Virginia

Two tugs play around the USS Bataan, guiding her out of port, the beginning of her long journey to the Mediterranean off the coast of Libya. Sailors and Marines line her decks, standing to attention while relatives say their goodbyes from another ship on the quayside. One woman rubs her hands up and down the arms of her young son, comforting herself with the repetitive motion as much as him. Another waves as the ship departs, waves as it moves into the open waters, and is still waving as it shrinks into the distance. There are tears, as those who remain behind hug each other in support.

One woman tells me: "Every time they go it is like a little bit taken out of a puzzle. That puzzle is your life. And they never come back the same."

The pain of parting for probably around a year must be great. But this mission is not like Afghanistan, or in the past Iraq, where those leaving would definitely see action. Indeed, no-one seems certain what they are going to do.

Not, as is sometimes the case, because they are unwilling to discuss a military operation. They really don't know.

I ask a couple of Marines if they think they will be landing.

"Couldn't really tell you," says one.

Do they know what the mission is? They shake their heads.

Several tell me they are surprised. They were due to go out to the area soon anyway but the Libyan crisis has cut short their time at home.

"Yes, sir, honestly a little bit surprised, but you're ready for anything in the navy."

"We only got two weeks' notice, it's really sudden," said another.

"I am a little surprised, they're very surprised too, it's a Libyan civil war, I don't quite know what we're doing there," one mother, here to see off her son, tells me.

They are, at least, designed to be ready for anything.

The USS Bataan, along with the USS Mesa Verde and USS Whidbey Island make up an amphibious ready group. The Bataan, which looks to my untutored eye like a small aircraft carrier, is an amphibious assault craft. On board are about 800 Marines (2,200 in the three ships), 26 aircraft, mostly helicopters, and a 600-bed hospital.

They would have been going out to the Med anyway, later in the year, to replace the USS Kearsarge. She's used to being a jack of all trades, delivering troops to the Iraq war, then acting as a Harrier carrier, and helping with the crisis after Hurricane Katrina and the Haiti earthquake. Minutes before he boarded the ship I asked the Commodore of Amphibious Squadron Six, Capt Steven Yoder, if he knew what the mission was.

"Right now it's undetermined. We arrive on station, we will be asked to do any of the missions we're trained to. They run from humanitarian assistance to maritime and security operations," he says.

I ask the Marines' commanding officer, Col Eric Steidl, what their mission will be, given that the UN resolution and President Barack Obama have been quite clear that there will be no boots on the ground, especially not American boots.

"I don't make policy decisions, I do what 'higher' tells me to do. Does that mean they will have nothing to do? That's not for me to say," he tells me.

In any war, the individual fighting men and women and their units don't know exactly what they are going to be doing and how that might change. It is a cliche to say no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. But in the Libyan crisis, there is greater uncertainty. The natural evolution of any conflict is further fogged by the uncertainty of what happens if Col Muammar Gaddafi doesn't lose quickly, and fears that the mission will change.

Nonetheless, those 2,200 Marines had better be prepared for a dull and uneventful trip. If they ever come off the front ramp of this landing craft, if they are ever deployed, it will be in defiance of the UN's resolution.

Mr Obama's words are clear, but the US military likes to be prepared for anything.

President Barack Obama tonight makes a speech he'd rather not be making: Explaining to his country, proud of its military but weary of war, why he has decided to bomb the armed forces of another Middle Eastern country.

TV networks are gearing up for live coverage. Mr Obama doesn't want to be a foreign policy president when most Americans are far more interested in the state of the economy, but he may not be able to avoid that fate.

The networks wouldn't dream of breaking into normal programming for one of his frequent economic speeches, so it is as though he never made them. This, on the other hand, could be a defining moment.

Some think it is too late. One usually supportive commentator writes: "This is really, truly unbelievable to me, and the worst thing Obama has done as president."

The man who speaks for House Republicans, John Boehner wrote a letter listing a series of worries, concluding, "all of these concerns point to a fundamental question: what is your benchmark for success in Libya?"

The president has made his task more difficult with an approach that is either sophisticated or confused, depending on your take.

He has to tell America why it is worth taking action. He also has to explain why he doesn't want the US to be in the lead or in charge. It took more than a week of wrangling before Nato agreed to take full control.

Donald Rumsfeld made the point the coalition should be defined by it aims, not the aims by the coalition. This is a real philosophical difference: politics as the art of the possible or an act of will.

America's low profile may be genuine or just spin, smoke and mirrors to disguise America's real role, but either way it is hardly heroic.

But it may be this tepid message reflects the American public's own lukewarm enthusiasm. A Gallup poll finds 74% back action, much lower than support for the Iraq war or Afghanistan at the time.

If I was Mr Obama that wouldn't worry me too much. He doesn't want to be in Libya in 10 years.

Indeed, explaining why this is not a long-term commitment like Iraq or Afghanistan has to be an important part of the message. So does being explicit about the goals. A lot of people have trouble getting their heads around his repeated contention that a Libya without Gaddafi is a political goal of the US but not a military one. The military goal is to protect civilians. The lines may indeed be blurring as the armed rebels advance on cities where some civilians may support Gaddafi.

We will be getting briefings throughout the day, so I will update, but I expect he will start with the latest "good" news.

He will stress that the US is acting as part of an international coalition, with Arab backing, and that the US's aims and commitment are limited. And he'll throw in some stirring rhetoric about the Arab Spring and universal human rights.

I doubt that he will address what to me are the fascinating contradictions at the heart of Obama's dilemma.

• The tug between not wanting to be the world's policeman and being the only guy with the gun and the muscle to stop a murder.
• The whole-hearted desire to act in concert with other countries, and the realisation that implies going along with stuff they want to do and you don't. (Being dragged into a war by the French, imagine.)
• Not wanting to be out front when many world structures are designed in the expectation that like it or not, America will lead.
• Intellectual appreciation that the ghost of Western colonialism is a powerful spirit never exorcised, and frustration that an untainted liberal interventionism hasn't grown in other countries.

It took a long time for Mr Obama to decide to take action, and the route he has taken, a genuine commitment to acting with other nations with the US in the lead, has made for the appearance of more muddle. Now it is time for clarity.

In his big speech on Libya, President Barack Obama answered two big questions, left two hanging in the air, and rewrote some recent history.

He said he had ordered military action in Libya to prevent a massacre that would have "stained the conscience of the world", and would have meant "the democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power".

He said that that "would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

Having dealt with critics who say he's gone too far, Mr Obama turned to those who say he hasn't gone far enough.

He said the world would be a better place without Col Muammar Gaddaffi, but to widen military aims to get rid of him would have splintered the coalition and meant American boots on the ground.

"To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq's future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya."

In this, he is preparing people for what may be quite a messy period, and he warned that Libya will remain dangerous until Col Gaddafi goes, that the Libyan leader may cling to power for a while, but that his people had been given "time and space" to decide their own destiny.

This is one question hanging in the air. How far is the coalition acting as the rebel air force? It may not be targeting the top man, but is it intent on destroying his military force? How thin is the line between driving off an army that may attack civilians and destroying that army in case they do?

The other question left hanging was whether there was such a thing as an "Obama doctrine", or at least a consistent approach to intervention. On the one hand, he seemed to argue against those who said America should not police the world: "There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are."

However, he accepted that didn't mean action in every case. "It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right."

So he seems to be saying, sometimes you do, sometimes you don't, take each case on its merit.

But what struck me most forcibly was the determined, confident tone of the speech. Every single news conference, sound bite or statement so far by Mr Obama has stressed that the UK and France were in the lead, the Arabs were supporting, the US was just part of a broad coalition. They've been thoughtful and a little hesitant. Those were the "on the road" snapshots. This was the air-brushed studio portrait.

Now Mr Obama repeatedly talked of the decisions he took, his leadership, his reasoning for taking firm action. The fact that the US mission is winding down and that it is handing over control to Nato was in there, but it wasn't the emphasis. Now it seems as if the action has worked, Mr Obama is claiming credit. The "I" word was to the fore, and I don't just mean Iraq.

The 2012 presidential race is on. Kinda.

At the moment, it feels more like a wade through treacle - so slow is the pace of President Barack Obama's opponents. Mr Obama can be unambiguous that he is going to run because they are all showing varying degrees of hesitancy.

If the president is to get back into the White House he has to leap a number of obstacles: an economy that is so sluggish that there are constant worries it could go backwards and supporters who may be unenthusiastic about sending more troops to Afghanistan, bombing Libya and failing to close Guantanamo Bay prison. There is also huge uncertainly in the country about health care and much more we will be looking at in detail.

But the strength of opposition doesn't seem, at the moment, a particularly high hurdle.  To British eyes, the primary system is one of the most curious parts of American politics.

The elite of British political parties have only grudgingly and slowly given the power of choosing their own leader. The principle of "one member, one vote" has been slow in coming. 

Elections for leaders rarely grip in the same way as American internal elections. While any American can easily register as a Republican or Democrat and have their say about who represents them, in Britain being a party member still seems an effort of will.

Twenty-five pounds ($40) per year may not be much to play your part in conservative politics in Britain, £12 may be a bargain to have a say in the Lib Dems and it's only a penny (for those under 27) to join the Labour Party - but it still costs something.

There's a feeling that being interested in who becomes your PM or MP isn't enough. You have to be willing to sit in draughty village halls on wet Wednesdays listening.  

The biggest difference is perhaps not in just who is involved, but how late in the political cycle the choice is made. This has a real impact. Every party leader, good or bad, has an image, policy likes and dislikes and personal ticks that colour voters approach to the parties as a whole.

The British public has years to get to know Ed Miliband and decide what to think about him leading a Labour government. Here in the US, the opposition is currently either faceless or hydra-headed. There is no obvious front-runner, and any prediction about who will be the Republican candidate in 2012 is nothing more than an informed guess.

Mr Obama v Michele Bachmann would be quite a different contest to Mr Obama v John Huntsman. 

Republicans get to choose, late in the day, exactly what they want their party to stand for.

The influence of the Tea Party suggests any candidate will be economically conservative, but beyond that, it is impossible to predict very much. The candidates are so unenthusiastic about firing the starting gun, the first big debate at the Reagan library in California has been put back from next month to the autumn.

Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Donald Trump seem almost certain to have a go. Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, John Huntsman and Mitch Daniels seem less sure bets. And, of course, there are plenty of other names out there.

Mr Obama is starting the race now to make sure that whoever challenges him, his organisation will be ramped up and ready, with big bucks at its command.

Washington teeters on the brink. If there is no agreement on a budget by midnight on Friday, the federal government will shut down. While cops and soldiers, air traffic controllers and others deemed essential won't down tools this is serious, at least according to the Obama administration. A senior administration official has told us loans to small businesses and home buyers will stop, which will have an impact on an already fragile housing market. Military and civilian workers won't be paid. The lions at the zoo will be fed (and unlike last time their waste should be collected) but the gates won't open to visitors. National parks will close. This is, of course, the most serious, as I am planning a vacation to one of them next week.

I am just back from the Capitol, and talking to people at a Tea Party rally. Their view might be summed up as "bring it on!" They were chanting "Shut it down!" Several made the point that if non-essential parts of the government shut down, they'd be quite happy. If it's not essential, the view is, then the government shouldn't be doing it anyway.

I suspect there will be a deal. There is too much for both sides to lose in the blame game that would follow. But the strength of the Tea Party has already made it hard for their leadership to compromise, and will make selling any deal tough. President Barack Obama and the Democrats don't have quite the same problem but the cuts he has accepted have already upset supporters.

Compromise is a peculiar business, I reflected as I started reading a book called At the Edge of the Precipice, by Robert Remini, the former historian of the US House of Representatives. It is about the 1850 compromise over slavery. He writes that the man at the centre of this, Henry Clay, "understood the importance of compromise... each side must feel that it has gained something that is essential to its interest as the result of the compromise. To achieve that goal each side must surrender something important to the opposing side. Both sides can then claim victory."

His contention is that compromise prevented an early civil war that the North would have lost, having neither leadership nor material to win at that stage. The argument is that it prevented the splitting of the US into two nations and thus was a good move. All history is hindsight, but I am uncertain about praising an agreement on the grounds that it turned out that it came unstuck later with better results. It was hardly the argument at the time. And compromises depend who is at the table. The compromise was between white gentlemen, while the slaves themselves had no say. Perhaps they might have had some thoughts about the value of compromise.

What's this got to do with today's politics? Simply that like Mr Remini, most Americans admire politicians who can behave with dignity and find a way through a difficult problem, by giving and taking. Bipartisanship is one of the highest ideals of US politics. But many of the politicians might question the morality of this. Enough of them might see the matters of practicality and principle at stake as too important to allow the other side to claim any sort of victory.

The president has cancelled his travel plans and says he expects an answer on whether a government shutdown can be averted by Friday morning, Washington time. He says: "I'm not yet prepared to express wild optimism", but sounded stern about the consequences of failure, particularly damage to a fragile recovery. "For us to go backwards because Washington couldn't get its act together is unacceptable."

He could be simply preparing the way for failure and claiming the moral high ground. But If that was the case I think we would have heard from John Boehner, the Republican leader in the house. They appear to be on the edge of a deal. What to look for next is how enthusiastic or otherwise are the Tea Party about any such agreement. If there are very few moans then the Republican leadership will have pulled off something of a coup.

Both sides looked over the brink and didn't like what they saw. Or rather they couldn't peer through the fog of competing narratives to see what was at the bottom of the abysses. I tend to think that at the start the American people would blame "politicians" in general without bothering to distinguish their party.

Some Democrats think it would be a straight replay of the last shutdown in 1995. Newt Gingrich badly miscalculated, was blamed for the shutdown and was forced to give way. It was seen as a turning point in the Clinton presidency which had been in the doldrums until this victory. Incidentally it had another huge impact. During the shutdown, in an understaffed and quiet White House, one intern was at work and had an opportunity to be alone with the president. Bill met Monica and the presidency was never the same.

That aside, many think this wouldn't be a straight repeat of 95. Bill Walker, who's still close to Newt Gingrich, was an influential deputy chief whip at the time. He told me: "I think in many ways it would be different than 95, because I do get the feeling, when I'm back home in Pennsylvania, that people have come to the conclusion that when a country reaches the point that its debt is equal to its gross national product, that country is in trouble.

"I think the blame is likely to vastly more divided. Clearly, the partisans are going to come down on the side of their party affiliations, so the question is - where do the independents come down?

"And, by every measure, so far the independents have said they are extremely concerned about the situation we're in with regard to debt, so if they come to the conclusion that Republicans have stood on principle, i think the Republicans will get at least a percentage of the independent vote."

Perhaps this is so. But there are huge risks on both sides. Even if a breakdown is averted today, there are many more moments yet to come over budget, debt and deficit. Late night crisis meetings at the White House may become a fixture.

Annapolis, Maryland

"I don't care where he was born. I just wish he would do something abut gas [petrol] prices," a man in Chick and Ruth's diner on the main street of Annapolis in the US state of Maryland told me.

That is the sort of reaction President Barack Obama hopes for. His message is that the fuss about where he was born is bemusing, puzzling, silly and a "sideshow" distracting from the huge economic issues facing America.

But Mr Obama had to kick over the sideshow if the customers at the diner were anything to go by. Most people I spoke had a hazy perception that there was something slightly untrustworthy about the document released by the Obama campaign two and a half years ago. Most thought this had dragged on far too long and deserved to be cleared up.

The argument that Mr Obama isn't eligible to be US president because he wasn't born in the US was once thought to be the preserve of the political fringes, those whose "birther" nickname equates them with the "truthers" who believe 9/11 was carried out by the US government.

But it was plonked centre stage by potential Republican candidate, billionaire property developer and TV star Donald Trump, who has said several times that he doubts Mr Obama was born in Hawaii and that he has put private detectives on the case.

Mr Trump was in New Hampshire today doing multiple stops in this key state. Mr Obama's press conference both stymies his big day and gives him even more publicity. Mr Obama's aim must be to make him look deeply unserious.

Many Obama supporters feel racism motivates the birthers - disbelief that a black man can be an American president. Some birthers are opponents who hate his values so much they think he must be un-American literally as well as metaphorically.

But there's no doubt his team has handled this appallingly.

They have today released the full birth certificate. In 2008 they released a "certification of live birth". The White House communications director writes:

When any citizen born in Hawaii requests their birth certificate, they receive exactly what the president received. In fact, the document posted on the campaign website is what Hawaiians use to get a driver's license from the state and the document recognised by the federal government and the courts for all legal purposes. That's because it is the birth certificate.

That appears to be true, and the Hawaiian authorities were apparently reluctant to publish the full thing. But what could be more delicious to conspiracy theorists than the existence of an unseen document that apparently the authorities were keen to keep from the full public gaze?

In Chick and Ruth's I found a full variety of views about the issue. A waitress said it was crazy that anyone ever doubted when Mr Obama was born, an older man still thought that his president may have been born in Kenyan and wanted to study the document. A younger man had no real doubts but thought this was overdue.

It may not go away. I have already had one e-mail from someone who said he had no interest in were Mr Obama was born but claimed the new document had been doctored.

But one thing is very clear. I was in Annapolis filming a story on the economy, and nearly every customer I spoke to ended up talking, unprompted, about the price of petrol. That was the real issue for them. Like the president, they regarded anything else as a sideshow, albeit an entertaining one.

President Barack Obama is making it clear that the killing of Osama Bin Laden didn't occur by accident - and that it happened while he was in charge. He told former Presidents Bush and Clinton what he was about to announce before he made his televised White House statement. I am sure he resisted any suggestion that he had done what they had only talked about. Yet he made it clear that his administration had been determined.

The president said that on taking office he had told the CIA that the al-Qaeda chief's death or capture was to be the agency's top priority. Senior administration officials say that he chaired five meetings in March working out the plans for this attack. It's really not clear to me if the political leadership makes much difference to operations like this, but it is certainly the impression Mr Obama wants to linger.

The raid took 40 minutes. The intelligence operation took years. It started with the search for a courier, perhaps something of a misnomer for a senior aide to Bin Laden, one of the few men he trusted, according to prisoners who had been interrogated. Four years ago they uncovered his identity. The very high level of precautions the man took made them all the more suspicious. Two years ago they discovered the areas in which he operated. Last summer they identified the compound, in an affluent suburb of Islamabad. Eight times the size of similar homes in the area, it had 18ft-high walls topped with barbed wire and inner walls 7ft high. A large place, worth a million dollars, but with no phone, no internet access. The CIA believes it was purpose-built to hide Bin Laden.

The US didn't tell the Pakistanis about the compound or about the raid until it had happened. That may create some diplomatic friction.

But the mood in America is exultant. As Twitter proclaimed the death of Bin Laden, before the president spoke, crowds gathered outside the White House, waving the stars and stripes and chanting "USA, USA". This is not a country that does quiet satisfaction. This is a cathartic moment for the nation, a moment when America's military might, know how and sheer will power seem to have come together to produce a result.

At a time when there are so many doubts about America's role in the world, and so much economic gloom, there is something clear and plain about celebrating the "rubbing out" of a bad guy, an enemy. The president has been congratulated by even his opponents, and this success allows him to appear grimly resolute in pursuit of America's core interests.

Senior administration officials say Bin Laden's death is not just a symbol, it removes a charismatic and respected leader whom al-Qaeda cannot replace. The official suggests the organisation is on a downward path that will be difficult to reverse. The domestic implications for Mr Obama are in the opposite direction, but may be just as important.

America has waited a long time, more than 10 years, for this moment of justice and revenge. President Barack Obama is making the most of it. He has said: "I think we can all agree, this is a good day for America. Our country has kept its commitment to see that justice is done. The world is safer. It is a better place because of the death of Osama Bin Laden."

The US has had agonised debates about the wars it has been involved in and its role on the world stage. The American reaction to Bin Laden's crimes, the invasion of Afghanistan, the Iraq War, have riven the nation. But most will see the killing of Bin Laden very simply, as an act without shades of ambiguity. The good guys shot the bad guy dead. Mr Obama is trying to use it to repeat one of his main messages: how the country should come together.

"Today we are reminded that as a nation there's nothing we can't do when we put our shoulders to the wheel, when we work together, when we remember the sense of unity that defines us as Americans."

He praised the people who celebrated.

"We've seen that spirit, that patriotism in the crowds that have gathered here outside the White House, at Ground Zero in New York, and across the country, people holding candles, waving the flag, singing the national anthem, people proud to live in the United States of America."

But there is an interesting word of warning in a thoughtful article for NPR by Foreign Policy writer David Rothkopf. The author reflects: "Sept 11 was not Pearl Harbor. Al-Qaida was not and is not a historic enemy like World War II's Axis powers. Bin Laden is not Hitler."

It is a point worth making. Bin Laden could create terrible suffering and appalling disruption, but he could never actually have won. If World War II had gone a different way, Hitler or his henchmen could have ruled from Downing Street. There was never any danger of Bin Laden taking over the White House.

America has had its moment of justice. Maybe it is a moment of closure too.

The White House has had to correct its facts about the killing of Bin Laden, and for some that has diminished the glow of success that has surrounded all those involved in the operation.

Bin Laden wasn't armed when he was shot. It raises suspicions that this was indeed a deliberate shoot-to-kill operation.

Here are the inaccuracies in the first version. The woman killed was not his wife. No woman was used as a human shield. And he was not armed.

The president's press secretary Jay Carney suggested this was the result of trying to provide a great deal of information in a great deal of haste.

I can largely accept that. There is no mileage in misleading people and then correcting yourself. But the president's assistant national security advisor John Brennan had used the facts he was giving out to add a moral message - this was the sort of man Bin Laden was, cowering behind his wife, using her as a shield. Nice narrative. Not true. In fact, according to Carney this unarmed woman tried to attack the heavily armed Navy Seal. In another circumstance that might even be described as brave.

Jay Carney said that Bin Laden didn't have to have a gun to be resisting. He said there was a great deal of resistance in general and a highly volatile fire fight. The latest version says Bin Laden's wife charged at the US commando and was shot in the leg, but not killed. The two brothers, the couriers and owners of the compound, and a woman were killed on the ground floor of the main building. This version doesn't mention Bin Laden's son, who also died.

By this count only three men, at the most, were armed. I do wonder how much fight they could put up against two helicopters' worth of Navy Seals.

Does any of this matter? Well, getting the fact right is always important. You can't make a judgment without them. We all make mistakes, and journalists hate doing so because it makes people trust us less. For those involved an operation like this, time must go past in a confused and noisy instant, and they aren't taking notes. Confusion is very understandable. But you start to wonder how much the facts are being massaged now, to gloss over the less appealing parts of the operation.

And of course there is the suspicion that the US never wanted to take Bin Laden alive. Here at least many see a trial as inconvenient, awkward - a chance for terrorists to grandstand. Look at all the fuss about the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

In the confusion of a raid it's hard to see how the Seals could be sure that Bin Laden wasn't armed, didn't have his finger on the trigger of a bomb, wasn't about to pull a nasty surprise. If he had his hands in the air shouting "don't shoot" he might have lived, but anything short of that seems to have ensured his death.

I suspect there will be more worry about this in Britain and Europe than in the US. That doesn't mean we are right or wrong. It is a cultural difference. We are less comfortable about frontier justice, less forgiving about even police shooting people who turn out to be unarmed, perhaps less inculcated with the Dirty Harry message that arresting villains is for wimps, and real justice grows from the barrel of a gun. Many in America won't be in the slightest bit bothered that a mass murderer got what was coming to him swiftly, whether he was trying to kill anyone in that instant or not.

Thanks for reading this: my blog is moving to a new home. The idea is to bring all my work and analysis together on one page: the blog, of course, but TV and radio pieces and [very soon] my tweets too. It's a great idea, and one the BBC is applying to most of the other editors and correspondents who blog.

I tend to use Twitter to link to either what I've written myself or to the work of colleagues, inside or outside the BBC. But that may change over time, as I see the virtue of live tweeting. The true worth of Twitter was shown on Sunday, when it gave us the first inkling that Osama Bin Laden was dead. Not all the speculation about the details was right but the one huge fact was.

The way I approach Twitter and news on the internet is very much driven by the way I consume it. The built TV bulletin is very far from going the way of the dodo but I want to be able to watch crafted reports online too. This new page should allow this and more.

22岁的Grime音乐流派男歌手Tinchy Stryder一步青云地坐到了榜首宝座。