war in iraq." the white house take on this is simple. president obama promised to end u.s. troop involvement in iraq and today fulfilled that promise. in one sense, it's absolutely true. here's what he said when he launched his campaign nearly four years ago. >> america, it is time to start bringing our troops home. it's time -- it's time to admit that no amount of american lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. >> now here's the president last year. >> consistent with our agreement with the iraqi government, all u.s. troops will leave by the end of next year. >> and here's mr. obama today. >> the last american soldier will cross the border out of iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success and knowing that the american people stand united in our support for our troops. >> sounds relatively simple, but keeping them honest, it leaves out a key fact, one that president obama made no mention of today. almost right up to the moment he made the announcement, american negotiators were trying to hammer out a deal with iraqi counterparts to keep a substantial troop presence in iraq. the agreement expires at the end of the year. but in his announcement today, president obama made no mention of that nor did he say the administration was working to renew it. we know that was the hope. here's defense secretary panetta on monday. >> we're still in negotiations with the iraqis. general austin, the ambassador, continue discussions with the iraqi leaders, and we're hoping ultimately that they'll be able to find an agreement here. so, at this is stage of the game, you know, i think our hope is that the negotiators can ultimately find a way to resolve this issue in terms of what are the iraqi needs and how can we best meet them once we've concluded our combat operations? >> that's what the president did not mention today. had a deal been reached, the administration reportedly wanted to keep as many as 5,000 troops in iraq, mostly as trainers, because some military leaders are concerned iraq can't control its own borders and air space. some wanted even more than 5,000. most of the gop candidates are weighing in. mitt romney slamming the president for what he called a failure to secure an orderly transition in iraq. jon huntsman and michele bachmann also criticizing the white house for not finding a way to keep troops in iraq. jessica yellin first alerted us to the difference between president's words today and what he said before about iraq. she's been talking to her sources about what really led to today's announcement and joins us now. even though total withdrawal is not what the administration would have wanted politically, it probably plays well for the president. >> reporter: politically, yeah, anderson. look, there's no question that the pentagon wanted to keep some forces in iraq beyond the new year, as you say mostly for training and advising. the breakdown was the u.s. and iraq could not reach agreement on immunity, getting u.s. troops immunity from the iraqi laws into the new year, anyone who stayed. so, as you heard the president say, they're all coming home now. you asked about the politics of it. the bottom line is go back to 2008. president, then-candidate obama, ran against the iraq war. that's what distinguished him from hillary clinton. and he promised to bring all the troops home. he said today, his first words when he stood behind the podium were, "i have made good on a campaign promise." he also ran promising to take out terrorists and refocus away from the wars on to al qaeda. and he emphasized that he killed bin laden today. so you see the politics of this heading into a campaign year. he's emphasized that he made good on what he pledged to do as a candidate, anderson. >> republican candidates were critical of the president for not being able to guarantee immunity for the u.s. combat troops. as we said earlier, republican candidates have now also come out swinging over the white house -- at the white house for pulling them out because they couldn't get that immunity. has the white house responded to what the republicans are now saying? >> reporter: the white house hasn't directly responded, but the obama campaign has, and i'll tell you, talking to the obama aides, i characterize their general position on this as bring it on. if they want -- if the republicans would like to make foreign policy part of this campaign, the obama team would be thrilled, because they think that foreign policy is a strength for this president. they think if you add up his -- what they perceive as successes, taking out osama bin laden, taking out now gadhafi, being part of that, going after al qaeda terrorists and the drone attacks, all adds up to leadership strengths that help the president. and they say contrast that with the records of the leading republican contenders, mitt romney, perry and cain who don't have the foreign policy experience. the obama campaign, anderson, also put out a statement on mitt romney that said, in part "his foreign policy experience is limited to his work as a finance executive, shipping american jobs overseas." meow. i mean, it's a sense of now snarky this campaign ahead will be. you know, the final point i'd make is americans just aren't that interested in foreign policy right now. i'd be surprised if this really plays large in the campaign at all. >> appreciate it. the last american fatality due to hostile action came on the 29th of last month. in all, more than 4,400 americans have lost their lives in iraq since the war began. more than $700 billion spent. iraq, in many ways, is only a barely functioning state. whether the white house wanted this outcome, the question remains can iraq cope on its own? will that heavy price in dollars and lives be squandered by a premature pullback? would a few thousand troops make any difference either way? digging deep now with time.com intelligence columnist, bob baer, john burns, and robin wright, arab affairs analyst at the woodrow wilson center, the author of "rock the casbah, rage and rebellion across the islamic world," a new book just out, an excellent read. john, let's start with you. were you surprised by this announcement, and what do you make of it? what does it mean for iraq? >> well, i think the iraqis made it inevitable by resisting any legal grant of immunity to american troops. that's self-evident. i do think that it has very ominous implications. i think a tripwire of a few thousand american troops, combat capable, if not actually engaged in combat, could make the difference or could have made the difference in offering a sort of stabilizing factor for iraq at a period which is going to be fundamentally unstable. i think it's worth remembering that nothing politically has been resolved in iraq. all or almost all of the sectarian geographic, regional, religious, political, ideological disputes that have plagued the american presence in iraq remain unresolved. without american troops there as a guarantor of at least a final degree of stability, i think you could see a descent into instability pretty quickly. >> robin, do you agree with that? and also, why wouldn't the iraqis grant immunity to a few thousand troops? >> well, immunity is a big issue, and it was a defining issue in, for example, bringing ayatollah khomeini to power in 1963 in iran. he made immunity the biggest issue, putting himself on the map, because iranians could be prosecuted for hurting or robbing americans, whereas americans would be immune from any kind of prosecution for even killing an iranian. so, this is an issue that resonates not only inside iraq, but in terms of what iran next door wants. i don't share john's concerns in terms of how dangerous iraq is going to be with, you know, just 5,000 -- without 5,000 american troops. the fact is the united states has an enormous number of troops in the region, ships. the fifth fleet is based in bahrain. this is -- it doesn't change the dynamics all that much. iraq has sectarian problems that are reflected across the region. but i don't think this is a moment that's going to make or break what happens in iraq next. >> bob, despite the white house, the way they're spinning it, i mean, there wasn't much choice, right? they wanted us out. >> there's no choice at all. it was clear three years ago the iraqis wanted us gone. this agreement was made under bush. it was inevitable that they were going to not vote immunity and i think this white house is making the best out of a bad situation. but i'd like to agree with john. he's absolutely right. i don't think we're done with the civil war in iraq. and it may not be such a bad thing that they resolve their problems and we can just hope that it's limited fighting. but you know, frankly, it's time to go. we've been there too long, done what we could and let's come home. >> john, what kind of a role do you see iran playing? there's a lot of concern expressed, especially by republicans these days, about iran now moving in to fill a vacuum in iraq? >> well, i think that's a guaranteed intervention. the iranians will do everything they can to extend their influence. of course, the equation will change a little bit with the united states gone because their principal objective in recent years seems to have been to frustrate the american presence rather than to create a stable environment for shiite government. but i think that anybody who's worked in iraq knows if there's a limited tolerance amongst iraqi shiites who are, for the most part iraqis first, shiites second, for iranian intervention, there are thousands upon thousands of iraqi shiites who fought in the iran/iraq war who will tell you that. and i think that the iranians, as in so many other ways, will, in effect, be the force for their own undoing in this. i don't think that they are going to succeed if what they want to do is to create a government in baghdad. i don't think that's going to succeed. i think the problem is going to be internal dynamics which will destabilize matters rather quickly, and i think there are a lot -- not i don't think, i know there are a lot of iraqis tonight who would agree with that who will be very sorry for all of the clamor that there has been about the american occupation. in the end, there will be many iraqis who will be very sorry to see the last american troops go. >> robin, can iraq secure itself? can they take care of themselves? >> no, the iraqis are not at that point that they can take care of all their issues. when you compare iraq to afghanistan, for example, the iraqis are much better off than the afghans will be in the three years when the united states proposes to leave afghanistan. and i think john's right. the iranians and the iraqis that fought the grisliest modern middle east war, the iranians are in many ways a threat to iraq in terms of their kind of aggressive promotion of whether it's really just ideology or their political system. and i think they'll be a resistance among the iraqis politically, militarily, economically, to prevent iran's influence from encroaching that much deeper than it already is. >> and bob, there's still going to be a lot of u.s. contractors over there. they will not have immunity. they will be open for prosecution if they get involved in shootings and things like that, right? >> oh, absolutely. i think we're going to sort of be moving into a citadel until that place stabilizes. anderson, you also have to keep in mind, taking american troops out of iraq, the iranians no longer have a hostage in that sense. and if we move toward any conflict with iran, it will be a lot easier, simply because our troops won't be in striking distance. >> interesting perspective, bob baer, john burns, robin wright, thank you very much. we're on facebook, follow me on twitter @andersoncooper. people weighing in on twitter. up next, late new developments out of libya and a closer look at gadhafi's final movements. this new video that we've gotten today shows people hitting him, pummeling him about the head when he's clearly very badly wounded. what we're learning from the fighter who's captured him. and stunning revelations how steve jobs fought the cancer that ultimately killed him. why he waited nine months to have the tumor inside him removed. how he finally turned to the best science that money could buy. why, in the end, it was not enough. dr. sanjay gupta explains when we continue. at a time like this, friends and family matter most. even preparing this lunch is a help, emotionally and financially. mm, it's true. i was surprised to hear there was no life insurance. funerals are so expensive. i hope larry can afford it. i know. that's why i'm glad i got a policy through the colonial penn program. it gives me peace of mind to know i can help my family with some of those expenses. you know, i've been shopping for life insurance. do you think they have coverage for me, something that would fit into my budget? yes. you can get permanent coverage for less than 35 cents a day. if you're between 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed. you won't have to take a physical or answer any health questions. oh, really? with my health, i didn't think i'd qualify. you can't be turned down because of your health. plus, your costs will never go up, and your coverage will never go down. okay. i'm convinced. i'm going to give them a call. are you between the ages of 50 and 85? did you think that quality insurance at an affordable rate is out of your reach? if you answered yes to these questions, then you should call about the colonial penn program now. for less than 35 cents a day, you can get affordable life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. there are no health questions or medical exam. you cannot be turned down because of your health. so, whether you're getting new insurance or supplementing coverage you already have, join the six million people who have called about the colonial penn program. ask one of their representatives about a plan that meets your needs. they're waiting to hear from you, so call now. i've put this off long enough. i'm definitely gonna call about the colonial penn program. >> the late word tonight, nato is setting a preliminary end date are october 31st for operations in libya. also new video of gadhafi's son smoking a cigarette shortly before he was killed. precisely how his father came to be killed is disputed. the usual warning here about what you're going to see, very grisly stuff. we're learning more what happened in this video of fighters knocking him around, shoving him into a pickup and taking him away even though questions still remain what happened between this scene and the final scene. libya's former strongman dead on the floor in the morgue in misrata. in a moment, a correspondent who spent time in misrata. first, what we're learning about the dictator's final moments. the new video shows him being marched away by revolutionary fighters moments after they found him hiding underneath a drainage pipe. he's beaten, kicked and shoved to the ground. his face is covered in blood. "film him, film. god is great," they're heard saying. in another video, you can see gadhafi being slapped, kicked, but he says defiantly, "shame on you. you're sinning. you're sinning.' a fighter replies, "you don't know about sin." the question is how he got from here clearly alive to here, dead, with an apparent gunshot wound to his temple in a morgue in misrata. a soldier told "the new york times" he was bleeding from the head and chest when they found him. another fighter told reuters gadhafi had gunshot wounds in his back and legs. this is fighter says he was the one who captured the colonel. >> translator: then we went to the other side and four or five ran out from under the road and surrendered. one of them told us that gadhafi was inside and wounded. when we entered the hall, i saw his bushy head and i jumped on him immediately. then all the fighters came and surrounded him. >> the libyan interim government still insists that gadhafi was not killed intentionally. they say he was killed in cross fire between his own men and captors as he was being taken to a hospital. gadhafi was first shot in the feet and then in the head, according to the libyan interim government, and later died of that head wound in the ambulance. but human rights watch in libya told cnn they're concerned his bullet wounds didn't come from cross fire, suggesting he was perhaps executed. they say they found 95 bodies at the site where gadhafi was captured and at least ten shot at point-blank range. international human rights groups have asked for an investigation. more is coming to light as correspondents on the ground keep adding to the story. earlier tonight, i spoke with dan rivers in sirte and lindsey hilsum, who spent the day with the people who captured gadhafi. lindsey, there are a lot of conflicting reports on his final moments. you spent the day with the brigade that captured gadhafi. what details were you able to gleam about his final moments? >> reporter: they say they did not kill him. they say they were fighting near sirte and then realized there were people down this culvert, this drainage ditch. and they were -- they went in there and started shooting. and then some people came out who they said were mercenaries or they were black, probably africans and said we surrender, we surrender. one of them said we are injured. and i have colonel gadhafi, moammar gadhafi down here. the young man i spoke to said at that moment, he dropped his kalashnikov, shouted god is great, and then jumped on top of gadhafi. that's what he told me. he said he realized it was really, really gadhafi -- he said i've never seen him face to face before. i had never seen him. and then gadhafi said what's happening, what's happening? and he said his voice sounded just the same as on television. he was obviously alive at that point, he was speaking. these men said that they took him to an ambulance, that he was injured. that he was bleeding. but they took him to an ambulance and sort of put him on the front of the vehicle and they showed me the vehicle where they said the blood on it was colonel gadhafi's blood. they say they don't know what happened to him after that. >> clearly in the video that we're watching right now, you see people hitting him with fists. his head is clearly bloody. people are slapping him, punching him in the head and in the face. and then later, he obviously shows up dead. what do they say about those reports though that he was executed or do some still say that he was caught in crossfire, which was the story floating around yesterday? >> reporter: nobody said to me today that he was caught in crossfire. the people who i spoke to were talking about the actual capture of him, and they say they really don't know what happened to him after they put him in the ambulance. >> dan rivers, what sort of reaction today have people been telling you about what went on? >> reporter: in terms of what we've gleaned about what happened, and it sort of chimes in with what lindsey is saying, we were speaking to one human rights watch investigator on the ground in sirte. he is fairly certain that gadhafi was not killed in the crossfire. he says that there was no reports of any shooting or fighting in that area after they caught gadhafi. i spoke to a reuters reporter here who had seen the ambulance ghadafi was put into and said there was no trace of any bullets going into that ambulance. they have seen his body in the morgue here, which they say has got a gunshot wound to the head. the question is how did he get that gunshot wound to the head? and it seemed it must have happened between him being taken in that video clearly still alive and at some point before he gets in that ambulance, being apparently shot in the head. >> lindsey, ha