The Tiller Murder

I was going to post on Obama's ostentatious private jet soiree to New York City (after just telling the auto CEOs to "show some restraint") but the Tiller murder seems a more important story.

A suspect is in custody, who appears to be an engaged "Christian" in the abortion debate. But Debbie at Right Truth has the seminal comment on this whole thing:

NO, THIS IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF 'PRO-LIFE', NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER WILL BE. This is some nut criminal.

Exactly.

Christians should be prepared for an onslaught. Obama has weighed in and is outraged--as any president would be at the news of vigilantism--but this will also be used to justify that Napolitano Homeland Security report from a few weeks ago. People will likely be accusing Christians of being no different than terrorists, some even making moral equivalency arguments involving bin Laden. The best way to stop it is by joining the condemnation chorus and strongly reminding everyone this act was something Jesus would definitely NOT do or approve.

This Needs to be Clarified..

My opinion on Judge Sotomayor has been fairly neutral so far but if the Repubs roll over and confirm her without asking how she'd interpret the Second Amendment maybe the party itself should roll over. To wit:

Just six months after Heller, however, Sotomayor issued an opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo that the protections of the Second Amendment do not apply to the states, and that if your city or state wants to ban all guns, then they have the right to disarm you. Such an opinion seems to fly directly in the face of Heller, exposing Sotomayor as an anti-gun radical who will affirm full-on gun prohibitions and believes that you have no right to own a firearm, even for the most basic right of defending your family in your own home.

But one might say, 'Heller still protects individuals from having their entire right to own a firearm stripped away', which sounds correct, as long as the Heller ruling still stands. Obama has tip-toed around this issue in the past, giving the impression he's not coming after firearms...

“Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’

But would he need votes in Congress if the SCOTUS rules that local and state governments right to control guns trumps the Bill of Rights? Most major cities are run by Democrat mayors/city councils I'd gather, but is that even possible? This may be overblown right wing paranoia but let's see her grilled on the gun issue just a bit, to see how and where she comes down.

Side Tracks

Now presenting, Supertramp..



Ringo was presumably on the drums?



Amazing how they could be that good completely blown away.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

The world is not enough for some of these Democrats:

"Cheney's world view, which so dominated the Bush years and dishonored our nation, gained a little traction last week -- enough to persuade me to address it head-on here tonight," Levin said.

What a guy, plying the airwaves to make sure the "torture" gift keeps on giving for the Dems. Wonder if Pelosi still considers it a gift, though? She pulled a Nixon and ran off to China last time the fur flew so unless she wants another vacation it would seem a big no. We will soon see if her "no further comment" policy remains in effect.

It's possible Levin is trying to reframe the debate to save her rear, ie, "Cheney only wanted waterboarded to get phony intel linking AQ and Iraq so he could get their greasy oil". It's the Larry Wilkerson route (although he's hit a few potholes) and is designed to take the debate off terrorists and back on "Bush lied" and "Cheney is evil" where the Dems feel more at home.

But if Levin is really really really interested in demonizing those in government who wondered aloud whether Saddam might be the man behind the curtain he could start by subpoenaing the Secretary of State and asking her why she said--on September 11th--that Saddam would have to be "dealt with" (hard to find now on the web) and that nations would have to be "with us or against us". Golly, that would have been before Bush officially lied, too.

Or maybe Levin could depose his colleagues and ask for explanations about what happened to the links they once talked about so morbidly when Clinton was being impeached. Or maybe he could depose himself, specifically about this statement:

Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq.

..which comes from his own Phase II Senate report That would be must-see TV!

This is tired old stuff but as long as the Dems keep dredging it back up it deserves to be challenged because they are literally trying to re-write history to wipe the GOP off the map. For instance, the Zarqawi debate is considered over by the left--as in Bush lied--but what about the Jordanians, who provided info on his comings/goings? Is Levin willing to call them liars, too? Is Pelosi?

And what of another guy named Abu? Old news but he's proof that Iraq was not beyond using proxies to attack American interests. Here are some other connections. They're out there, just a bit circumstantial. But if someone was going to set up a proxy network...

The bottom line is whether Cheney is lying about the effectiveness of EIT as Levin charges. First off, the public should wonder how Levin was able to view the very documents the CIA won't release to Cheney. Second, the public should demand to see the docs because then and only then will it become apparent who's telling the truth. If it turns out Cheney's bluffing or generalizing it would strongly suggest he was going after links between Iraq and AQ because that's where the WMD threat would have come from. But that's not what he's been saying in interviews.

Maybe he can't admit they got suckered and thought Iraq was involved, which might be a little problematic from a political point of view and would surely elevate Obama's 'superior judgment' into the stratosphere. But if Cheney's lying we need to know. Only the docs can tell. If he's not Levin and crew should receive no quarter.

Whether he's lying or not doesn't change the big Democrat lie, ie--that it's crazy to think a man who wanted the White House turned into dust might have actually tried to do it. Saddam was all about retribution and Arab pride. Apparently the left never truly believed the hype about him during the Clinton years, seeing Iraq as a convenient distraction when the Republicans were wrapping the dress around Clinton's neck. That changed fast with the transition.

Maybe they never really believed somebody would act on it. The real proof lies with the Clintons, who've never fully discarded or debunked it themselves. Whether that's the truth or something designed to protect their legacies (they have a lot of harsh rhetoric on tape) is hard to say, but should there be any truth commissions they should be among the first witnesses called to set the table.

Obama's Strange War on Britain

What exactly is the reason for this?



It's tempting to write it off as the ranting of a pompous ass with no sense of diplomacy but as everyone knows, this junk has been going on since they stiffed Brown on a hospitality gift. As the Telegraph says, they are dissing allies while making nice with enemies. What next, trashing Prince Harry's visit to Ground Zero? It's bloody outrageous.

Meanwhile the Queen is ticked for being snubbed on the D-Day memorial and all we get from Washington is "mum". Yeah, we get it. Hilarious. Laugh on you crazy press diamonds as the world crumbles all around us.

It certainly appears to be a pattern now. So what gives? Surely Obama wouldn't be avenging grandpa, would he? Surely he can't be that petty.

The strange thing is that Gibbs knows most of the Brit press has been sympathetic with American liberals regards stories on Iraq, Bush and torture, yet he seemingly undermined all their previous reporting in one fell swoop. This coming from the spokesman for a man who vowed to improve America's image overseas--he still laments on the damage Bush did to our reputation.

But what if this treatment IS about improving the rep? In his mind. Could they possibly believe that bashing the only country that significantly helped us take out Saddam improves our world image? Perhaps a serious question or two can be squeezed in amongst the giggles sometime soon.

A Sotomayor Strategy

Obama has issued a challenge to the right--oppose my SCOTUS candidate or else. Another shocking veiled threat from the scrawny but tough kid from Chicago. Anyone who doesn't take a man seriously who's backed by a media apparatus consisting of Comedy Central, the late night shows, the mainstream media, liberal bloggers, HBO and Hollywood, several major newspapers, several periodicals, college professors and all but one of the View ladies are utter fools.

It appears he's trying to position the judge as the entire Latin vote, setting up a scenario where if the right bashes her they bash all Latinos, losing the chance to ever gain power again. It's a pick your battles moment with Obama poised to win either way.

Ms. Sotomayor may not be a token but she represents a thank you card to the nearly 70 percent of Latinos who swallowed Obama's hopenchange despite his horrible stance on abortion, unsupportive comments about the church and his wink-wink disapproval of gay marriage. An unspoken part of that dynamic are the undocumented illegals, who probably hope they'll one day be able to vote for the One.

Here's a video from 2007 suggesting amnesty might be on the way. We also know the Judge is purportedly a member of the National Council on La Raza, a group who supports a liberal immigration policy. Obama has ties--he used a waiver on his lobbying rules to hire Cecilia Munoz, a former VP of the NCLR. As most bloggers and internet geeks know the La Raza movement has been rumored to have shadowy ties to groups like MECHa, brought to us by some very, shall we say, interesting web sites:

Believers in the Aztlan legend insist upon the indivisibility of "La Raza" and their common goals, one of them being the need to abolish the border between the U.S. and Mexico. There is a myriad of Raza college newspaper. Some are El Popo, Aztlan News, Chispas, Gente de Aztlan (UCLA), Voz Fronteriza (U.C. San Diego), La Voz Mestiza (U.C. Irvine) and La Voz Berkeley. It is not uncommon for the writers of these publications to refer to the U.S., as "AmeriKKKa."

Rhetoric by some Chicano educators strongly suggest Communist or Socialist leanings.

Not sure when this was written but the KKK America thing certainly jumps out. Dismiss it as rantings of a xenophobic crank--the NCLR web site denies they are affiliated with MECHa or any other open borders movement--instead heralding the financial backing of several large corporations. But wouldn't backings by the government and corporations be an even shadier endorsment? The National Chamber of Commerce is a mouthpiece for cheap labor.

Last night in Los Angeles Obama barked,

I want her confirmed, I want her walking up those noble steps and starting to provide some justice!

'Justice', 'empathy', code words. Obama is currently bathing in the warm light of the new diversity and part of that is reveling in some 200+ year payback. Part is tearing down the opposition--which he learned in Chicago--and part is grabbing new voting blocks like Hispanics. He's been so successful at change it's producing a new cockiness that includes outright dares as he proceeds to kneecap the GOP. So, what are they to do?

Well, they can cower in fear and allow him define their racist guilt. Or they can speak out and have it crammed down their old white throats, every comment dressed as if it came from Rush Cheney himself. And it will succeed.

Or, the GOP can try to salvage something by pushing for Colin Powell to be their point man on this. He says he's still in the party and he can't be called a racist. And the left just got through elevating him, meaning he's got capital. Even if he were to side with Sotomayor it might be a winner just by allowing him to further define himself. If he refuses to speak that's another data point for down the road, and if he comes out against her it'll hold a lot more weight than something from the titular head of the party.

Napolitano's Canadian Gaffe

Everyone, apparently including Janet Napolitano herself, thinks her March statement about terrorists crossing the Canadian border into the United States was erroneous:

"Terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across ... the Canadian border," she was quoted as saying.

But if a mistake, why and how? Surely they don't choose counterterrorism officials based on their ability to start diplomatic rows based on falsehoods. Or maybe they do--whatever--still, the fact remains that only conspiracy theories provide any evidence that terrorists crossed the border from Canada so it's odd she'd make the assertion unless something boiled up from her subconscious.

Towards that end, her department is certainly familiar with terrorists who've crossed the other way, guys like Adnan Shukrijumah (aka Jefar the Pilot) who has passports in both countries and was the focus of a publicized BOLO alert in 2005, and who's still at large (along with another Saudi-trained pilot Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali, although it's not clear whether he ever visited Canada).

And surely she's familiar with the strangest terrorist of all, Mubarak al-Duri, whom the 9/11 Commission once called bin Laden's chief WMD procurement person and who attended the University of Arizona. There's little doubt he entered Canada and their government thinks he was associating with Mohamed Mahjoub, a terrorist arrested in 2000 who was linked to the Egyptian Vanguards of Conquest. VOC is an offshoot of Zawahiri's EIJ, the same outfit who sent operatives to Baghdad in 2002 to meet with Iraqi Intelligence before the US invasion.

So perhaps her mind was swirling with thoughts of others who plied the skies and schools of Arizona during the 90s when she was a US Attorney and later the Arizona Attorney General. At the time her office seemed focused on right wing extremists like Michael Fortier (hey that sounds Canadian) of Oklahoma City bombing fame while associates of the abovementioned characters were running loose, guys like 9/11 pilot Hani Hanjour or a man named Muhammad Al-Qudhai'een, who in 1999:

Their crime: accidentally trying to open the cockpit door of the plane they were on, thinking it was the bathroom, and asking suspicious questions such as, "When will we be arriving in Washington DC?"

He apparently had ties with a terrorist famously mentioned in the Arizona FBI agent's ignored warning to Washington in summer 2001, which later became fodder for inside job conspiracy theories--but only about Bush.

Al-Duri also had ties to bin Laden's principal aide and another former Arizona resident and native Iraqi Wadi el-Hage, currently serving life. Al-Duri has fared much better, fortuitously moving to the Sudan right before 9/11, where both the FBI and CIA later caught up with him to inquire of his friends but for some reason came away empty. Interestingly, those interrogations occurred before the 9/11 Commission labeled him a WMD guy, suggesting it remains an accurate description. Yet remarkably:

According to the most recent intelligence, al-Duri has returned to Iraq...

Never mind he shares the same sirname as the former Saddam RCC leader accused of sponsoring the insurgency.

So who knows, maybe some of this explains Ms. Napolitano's apparent confusion. The only other explanations--general cluelessness or a bias towards Canada--would have been grounds for dismissal.

The Chrysler Closing Conspiracy

In a nutshell, some have questioned whether a litmus test was used when deciding which Chrysler dealers would close. Doug Ross did some research using online donation tools and found:

To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn't an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.

Read the whole thing because it's really eye-popping if even partially true. Here's a map of all the closed dealerships, 789 to be exact:



A pretty standard distribution. It's likely that when the dealerships in question are plotted it won't look much different. Why? Because if something nefarious were occurring they wouldn't want to telegraph it by leaving gaping holes in certain markets. Indeed, as DB's article links, the closing criteria consisted of:

"sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area."

So what's the rub? The rub is potential to use the closings to get rid of political opponents or reduce their viability.

Theoretically, if Dem operatives were able to get influence as to the closing list they might desire to pick off some heavy GOP donors in key markets. Two things would be accomplished, 1) it would remove income for those heavy hitting GOP donors, diluting their future ability to donate and 2) it would remove competition for the remaining Dem-friendly dealers so they make more money and in return CONTRIBUTE MORE to the party as payback. That's what Chicago politicians might do. Theoretically, of course.

Could be nothing--just some whining from the losers, yet it's the kind of story 60 Minutes has built a cottage industry around. With GM slated to close up to 2600 dealerships if it follows Chrysler into a packaged bankruptcy there is potentially more to come. A big-league investigation team might be able to crack this conspiracy or put it to rest. Hopefully they're working on it.

But chances are they won't touch it with a forty-foot pole, not only because most are loyal Democrats who voted for Obama (made clear at the Correspondents Dinner) but because print media is itself behind an eight ball with many in jeopardy of being shut down or bailed out by the government. The intimidation factor is powerful, even if it's just the perception of intimidation without any substance whatsoever.

The Sotomayor Pick

Well, this might make a few lefty heads explode:

Obama had some truly outstanding legal intellectuals and judges to choose from—Cass Sunstein, Elena Kagan, and Diane Wood come immediately to mind. The White House chose a judge distinguished from the other members of that list only by her race. Obama may say he wants to put someone on the Court with a rags-to-riches background, but locking in the political support of Hispanics must sit higher in his priorities.

So said the left's modern version of Goebbels, John Yoo. The crux of his dissent (which must be coming from an unspecified location outside Berkeley where he is on the faculty) is that she'll let feelings triumph over the law. Her public speeches seem to suggest it. But that's exactly what Obama said he wanted!

It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.

Before he said he didn't:

Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

So it's hard to say.

We know Hannity will be going nuts but as to her formal confirmation, conservatives should be respectful when expressing their dissenting views. The last thing anyone needs is Ms. Mayor's spouse being driven to tears like Mrs. Alito or made the butt of late-night comedians like Tina Fey.

Memorial Day

Thank you and Godspeed to all the fallen Sheep Dogs who paid the ultimate price to secure our basic freedoms, including the ability to write even this short thank you note as well as the other political nonsense scribbled here and elsewhere on public forums. Thanks as well to all who've served and are now serving.

iPhones and Teh Torture

Here's CNN presumably providing a propaganda outlet to a former Taliban propaganda guy:

"It was a bad stain on American history," he said. "If they are closing Guantanamo for justice, they have to bring the people who are torturing people, who abuse people, to justice."

While the left might say "toldja so" the right probably thinks the world is near its end when ex-Taliban members start lecturing the USA on human rights violations. Yet Bush let this guy go in 2005. Why? Well, here's a potential answer:

Though he is no longer a Taliban member, many see him as an unofficial mediator between the government and the Taliban.

Maybe some people are more useful in the field than in lockup. Maybe that's why he found his freedom, such that it is. Anyway, with Obama in power the international language is now Bush's torture not Taliban torture, so he's probably just working the table. Who knows, he might even be in Obama's Blackberry since they both like the new technology.

Madame Bond Girl

This RNC ad is causing all kinds of consternation:



It's a given that many Democrat politicos are happy with the innuendo because it represents a rope thrown to them by the RNC and a chance to go back on the attack. The conservative debate is more interesting. Allahpundit has apparently gone into a cage match with Darleen at Protein Wisdom and others over the wisdom of this...I agree with Allah here.

Everyone knows there's a double standard in play. It's not going away any time soon. Certainly the RNC knows, or should have after the Magic Negro flap, but they appear either tone deaf or outright suicidal, unless they were deliberately trying to provoke outrage so one of their own moderates could stand up and look moderate (is this him?). Not sure Steele is that conniving, but it would be a play to the target audience here--moderates, whether they were targeted or not.

And that's the perspective that needs to be understood here. Unless they were preaching to the choir for donations the crux of the Pelosi flap was the disgust over a House Speaker lying over a national security issue for political gain. So the counter is a childish schoolyard reference, or the perception thereof? Great. The Bond theme without Galore would have been fine--it was clever. Maybe it doesn't go viral but what good is a viral video if it backfires? Surely the Sunday talking heads will appreciate the backdrop for their interviews with General Powell.

There is one consolation here. The RNC shrewdly released this after Madame Speaker said she'd have no further comment on the issue. Now, if she comments it'll represent a further comment and the press (Fox and Tapper) can fire away again. So there's your silver lining, such as it is.

MORE 5/24/09

The old guard was on TV today knocking down the twin bogeymen Cheney and Limbaugh. General Powell claims he's still a RINO, reminding us he voted for both JFK and Carter. Too bad Bob Schieffer didn't go into how he felt about the Carter vote as compared to his recent decision.

The General keeps harping on the need for a big tent but apparently his tent is too small for religious conservatives like Palin or even a man partially responsible for the Republican victories of the 90s. So exactly what would Powell's circus look like? Would it stand for bigger government, as he recently suggested? If so, how is that an adherence to any form of Reblicanism known to mankind?

Those so willing can take a journey with me to explore some of his reasons for supporting Barack Obama:

"And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."

In other words, symbolism over substance, because Obama didn't have much substance. One could say Powell was only playing an angle--that he knows today's politicians aren't judged on who they are, but who they appear to be (otherwise Nancy Pelosi would be back on the Berkeley teaching circuit right now). But does he really think that fancy oratory is a primary requirement for a president over and above the real substance that McCain embodied?

As to campaign details, recall his thoughts on the mention of William Ayers:

"Sen. McCain says he a washed-up old terrorist — then why does he keep talking about him?" Powell asked.

Funny, since it darn near took a court order to get McCain to acknowledge him. He was hiding from the media and the Obama campaign was disenginuous about their relationship. As Powell admitted, Ayers was an issue, yet it was only after Palin brought him up on the stump that McCain relented. Powell did not need to come down on the side of the Marxist in that spat. The fact he did suggests there was an emotional reaction to the bashing of Obama.

More specifically as to Sarahcuda:

And the party has moved even further to the right, and Gov. Palin has indicated a further rightward shift."

What, by taking on members of her own party in Alaska or spreading the state's oil wealth? Those aren't exactly old-style moves. Perhaps the small town comment really got under his skin or maybe he even took it as racist, which would represent another emotional reaction. Or maybe it was convenient.

"This Powell endorsement is the nail in the coffin," said one Republican official, speaking anonymously to offer candid thoughts about the party's nominee. "Not just because of him, but the indictment he laid out of the McCain campaign."

Indeed, it was a devastating public jab. But it's not as if the General had no motive for the throwing the sucker punch.

Side Tracks

Here's a short tribute to Charley Pride..



And Dolly..



Yee haw!

What's That Plane

No one ran for cover, it was more like "hey look Cletus, a plane is heading for the Pyramid! Grab the handycam." Turns out it wasn't an unannounced part of Memphis in May, rather the local Homeland Security office was testing a defense system here in river city. Why Memphis?

Homeland Security Program Manager Kerry Wilson says they picked Memphis because they wanted to test the equipment in a real world environment where the systems would have to operate amidst technological "clutter."

Well yes, because Memphis is not only the home of Elvis and barbecue, but technological clutter. Everyone knows that! It couldn't have anything to do with the homespun jihadists just busted in New York with a fake Stinger or the Scare Force One event. But they chose well--the story made nary a national ripple as it unfolded Friday afternoon.

The test plane had DHL markings, a tad ironic here in the home of Federal Express. Hopefully Fred Smith didn't take it personally. But probably not, since they are a part of the test.

There's No I in Albert

And there's no I in team, but there is one in "Big Mac Land", at least there used to be....

Gotta love the Mad Hungarian saying Albert's swing wasn't grooved right now. Here's hoping he gets it grooved.

Gitmo Didn't Cause the NYC Terror Plot

Here's the Commander-in-Chief from his Archives speech:

Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

With that in mind, here's some background on the four clowns busted for trying to blow up New York synagogues in the name of Allah (emphasis added):

Muslims fueled by hatred of America and Jews, they spent months scouting targets and securing what they thought was a surface-to-air missile system and powerful explosives — all under the watch of an FBI informant.

Perfect--one was an illegal alien fighting deportation while living off food stamps in public housing (just like Obama's aunt). And horror of horrors:

Relatives said the defendants were down-on-their-luck men who worked at places like Wal-Mart,

As if working at Wal-Mart is synonymous with becoming a dirty terrorist or deadbeat. This is the kind of moral relativism that prompted Bush/Cheney to open Gitmo in the first place. They wanted to keep 'brainwashed' murderers off the streets, out of the courts (with pro-bono publicity hound lawyers) and away from the sympathetic sensationalizing media. Lives were in the balance.

Obama mentioned the prosecution of Ramzi Yousef as an example of our previous sterling success before Bush messed everything up by opening Gitmo. As if. We never got anything of substance out of Yousef because he was put into the criminal justice system immediately upon arrival in New York (he even vowed his buds would one day take out the Trade Centers on the way into town on the helicopter). Most assuredly he knew a lot about his uncle KSM, bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and maybe even some things about state participation in terrorism.

Yet that's Obama's definition of success. He doesn't seem to get it. Yousef wanted to topple one tower into the other, killing hundreds of thousands. He developed that hatred having never heard of Gitmo, as did Zawahiri and bin Laden.

Fact is there have been more than a few whispers about what goes on at Supermax, ie, possible brutality. And there will be more if we put the Gitmo people in similar places. Yet somehow moving the terrorists to a more clandestine and less media-accessible facility will somehow improve our moral values? Not to mention that the New York jihadies radicalized in jail.

Somebody needs to open a history book and show Obama that Bush didn't cause the mess he's now whining about--he inherited it from Clinton, who inherited it from Bush 41. Do we need a better system for detainees? Probably, but dumping on the previous guy while reverting to a failed policy really does nothing to make the country safer. Just words, not change.

Time for the Hook

Here's the Speaker of the House telling everyone she was never told about waterboarding:

"Flat out, they never briefed us that this was happening," she told reporters. "In that or any other briefing … we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used."

Here she is admitting she was told, by an aide, in 2003, sort of:

A Democratic source acknowledged yesterday that it is almost certain that Pelosi would have learned about the use of waterboarding from Sheehy.

Later she explained that the CIA lied to her:

Pelosi repeated that she had not been told about the use of torture techniques, despite the claim in the recently released CIA documents that she had been. “I am saying that the CIA was misleading the Congress,” she said.

Then she walked back the cat:

“We all share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who are deeply committed to the safety and security of the American people,” she said in a statement issued by her office. “My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe.

And finally, here's her spokesperson on the defeat of a House resolution to start an inquiry into her accusations of CIA lying:

"This is partisan politics and an attempt by the Republicans to distract from the real issue of creating jobs and making progress on health care, energy and education," said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

How much more international embarrassment can America take? The terrorists are going to start appearing sympathetic by comparison.

GOOD LORD 5/22/09

This is from Hot Air's new Green Room...



Not sure if, as Hot Air says, she's standing by her "comment" that the CIA lied--since it was non-specific it could have been her statement that Bush lied or that she lied. Anyway, it's clear they've handed her a new story and she's stickin' to it. What an embarrassment for our country.

Past is Prologue

It certainly appears Dick Cheney has Obama tied in knots over national security:

President Obama on Thursday defended his decision to shutter the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the prison has made the United States less safe and set back the country's "moral authority."

Evidently the release of the OLC memos and all the rhetoric haven't done the trick. He keeps having to repeat this campaign theme over and over, only to have Cheney come out and mutter a few things on TV, which prompts a return in front of TOTUS to slam waterboarding again, only to have Cheney's numbers go up. Maybe Dowd was onto something after all.

And how's that for irony--speaking at the National Archives on a national security theme (as to the Gates miscue, looks like he drifted off TOTUS to his notes for a moment, natch).

Meanwhile in the backdrop of this dueling speechifying the US arrested a homespun jihad cell in New York planning to blow up some houses of worship and a military transport. Guess the rhetoric wasn't working on them, either.

Obama still has visions of going back to the salad days where terrorism was a nuisance and terrorists were tried in Federal Court to limited fanfare. He announced the DoJ will bring one of the Africa Embassy bombers from Gitmo to lower Manhattan for trial (where he's been under indictment since the late 90s). According to Holder and Obama if we can do it with Ramzi Yousef and the Blind Santa, we can do it again.

Neither are mentioning the complications present with both those trials that had future ramifications. In the Yousef case they failed to connect any dots to Uncle Khalid, who later blew up the Trade Center. There's also this if you're into conspiracies. As to the Blind Shake case, we had threats for years tied to springing him from jail and of course there was the Lynn Stewart mess. Returning to a law enforcement approach only puts national security back in the hands of the lawyers.

Anywho, the last time our government mentioned Ahmed Ghailani (before his capture) they were gravely concerned about a new attack being planned that might have included the following terrorists:

Abderraouf Jdey
Adam Gadahn
Adnan Shukrijumah
Aafia Siddiqui
Amer El-Maati
Fazul Abdullah Mohammed

Jdey has not been seen since the Canadian CSIS said he left Canada in November 2001. There has been a lot of speculation (just Google him) about him and the anthrax attacks and/or American Flight 587, most of it probably specious, but his disappearance has done nothing to squelch that speculation.

Gadahn, aka, Azzam the American, was a public voice on Jihad TV for awhile, but has now disappeared. Whether he was introduced face to face with Mr Hellfire is unknown.

Shukrijumah is perhaps the most dangerous terrorist in the world who hasn't done anything yet (that we know of). Here's a piece on his importance. And yes, he's a pilot.

Siddiqui was captured in Afghanistan and later was involved in a gun battle while in captivity according to the military. She's particularly important due to her university background. No word on how her prosecution is going, but she's not at Gitmo.

Amer al-Matti is also a pilot, also a Canadian, and also hasn't been seen in Canada for awhile.

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed is still on the lam. He was an accomplice in the African Embassy bombing plot 10+ years ago, when Holder was last at DoJ.

Matter of fact, there are several others still on the loose besides number one and two, like Abdullah Abdullah, Sheikh Swedan, Saif al-Adel, Fahid Msalam, Ahmed Ali, and Anas al-Libi who are all still wanted for the African Embassy bombings; a few Hizballah thugs still wanted for the hijacking of TWA 847 in 1985, several of the perps involved in Khobar Towers and of course Abdul Yasin, one of the bomb mixers in the 1993 WTC attack, last seen in Baghdad.

Moving forward is fine but history doesn't simply go away. Obama promised a transparent government; his attempts to politicize his predecessor's approach to terrorism--something even an uber-liberal from San Francisco wouldn't do when things were hot--is perhaps the biggest transparency of his administration so far. And it appears the public is beginning to take note.

Yes I know, most are tired of hearing all this. Perhaps the Republicans should focus on the government's control of GMAC and 2/3rds of the US auto business; or related dichotomies; or stuff like this:

Dan Brockman, who retired from his job at a General Motors Co. brake plant in Dayton in 2007 after learning the plant would close, applauded the federal assistance and said he might be one of the workers helped by it.

Harder targets, I guess.

MORE 5/22/09

The anonymous commenter was correct. The point here was to illustrate how fruitless Obama's TOTUS-fueled campaign rhetoric of blaming Bush seems to be, while pointing out how fruitless our previous law-enforcement approach to terrorism really was. But don't worry, my day job is still intact. Allow me to defer to a professional writer:

If any president has gone to such lengths to attack his White House predecessor as Obama did today, I don't recall it. True, presidents have blamed the prior administration for problems they inherit, but I can't think of a president who did so as aggressively and with such moral preening as Obama.

There was a reason for this. His speech was a dodge because when it came to the issue at hand--what to do with the 240 remaining terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo--he had no answer at all. Instead, the best he could do was elaborate on the five categories in which his administration has pigeonholed the detainees.

Meanwhile, SecDef William Gates is out defending Obama's decision to close Gitmo on day one without a plan because the place is a taint on the US, but it seems to me a blue-ribbon panel announced on day one to 'study' the issue would have worked just as well. We need a prison camp somewhere.

As it stands, Obama has poked himself with his own knife by creating a needless ultimatum for himself while Cheney runs around reminding everyone how dangerous are detainees KSM, Binalshibh, and Zubaydah as the world (including Congress) takes a Pandora's Clock approach.

Powell, Zarqawi, and Wilkerson

In the continuing saga called Pelosi, is Colonel Wilkerson perhaps morphing into Colonel Mustard? His contention that Tenet invented new data about al-Libi before the Feb 2003 UN briefing--data that put his boss General Powell over the top for going to the UN--seems now to be debunked by Maureen Dowd's own paper:

The unraveling of the Qaeda story in Iraq, still under way, took on some of the drama of an espionage thriller when, following the murder of Mr. Foley, the Qaeda deputy to Mr. Zarqawi suffered a lapse of communications discipline, a coalition official said. As he drove across northern Iraq to the Turkish and Syrian frontiers, he could not resist using his satellite phone to call Mr. Foley's murderers to congratulate them and to tell them he was on his way to meet with them.

''The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder,'' Mr. Powell said. In December, Jordan said it had two men in custody who had confessed to killing Mr. Foley on the instructions of Mr. Zarqawi.

Unless Cheney death squad members were in the car waterboarding him into using his satellite phone to give up intel, linking Baghdad to al Qaeda, I'd say this looks like strike four for Colonel Wilkerson.

But not so fast. The question of Zarqawi in Iraq and terrorist ties was quite contentious and something Powell later apologized for (and apologies for the left wing narrator):



Notice the General isolated Tenet from blame for not being given 'burn notices' about faulty intelligence, which appears contrary to his current stance. How many would bet that Powell really backed Obama as part of his ongoing war on Cheney?

Anyway, the notion that Zarqawi's Iraq AQ network was planning attacks in Europe might have been true:

British intelligence officials in Iraq are questioning an al-Qaeda operative after information relating to the 7 July London bombings was allegedly found on his computer drive.

The man, who has not been named, was captured by US forces last month. He is understood to have had a portable computer drive on him that showed 'knowledge' of the attacks that killed 56 people.

There was also evidence that Zarqawi was tied to former regime elements, something al-Libi told us early on. The government would have been negligent not to pursue these leads based on the long track of intelligence dating back to the Clinton years.

One could possibly make the argument that CIA analysts were trying to cover their rears after the WMDs failed to materialize but it seems ridiculous for them to lie to Pelosi, Goss or anyone else in 2002. If anything they were probably embarrassed for being fooled by the Iraqi Intelligence Service all those years or others like Curveball, but that would not have come in 2002.

Loose Archives

Uh, oops:

The National Archives lost a computer hard drive containing massive amounts of sensitive data from the Clinton administration, including Social Security numbers, addresses, and Secret Service and White House operating procedures, congressional officials said Tuesday.

Let the Sandy Berger jokes begin. Actually, upon some quick study the National Archives is more than just an arcane old building in Washington, it's a small network. The facility in question was their records building in College Park, MD. Here's a quip from the website:

One of our primary missions is to promote easy access to records, and we will make every effort to see that these security measures do not unduly interfere with your research or visit. Thank you for your cooperation.

Mission accomplished, apparently. The WaPo has their own version of the AP story and provided a bit more info about who was accessing the data when it was lost:

A Republican committee aide who was at a briefing held by the inspector general said the Archives had been converting the Clinton administration information to a digital records system when the hard drive vanished.

The aide, who was not authorized to be quoted by name, said the hard drive was left on a shelf and unused for an uncertain period of time. Later, the drive was found to be missing.

Interestingly, the WaPo version didn't include the years along with the dates of possible disappearance. My Way News wrote it this way:

The drive was lost between October 2008 and March 2009 and contained 1 terabyte of data - enough material to fill millions of books.

Not sure why the WaPo felt the need to dump the years other than the obvious fact that March 2009 would include the Obama era. But that's ticky-tack in comparison to what happened here, which the FBI and Secret Service are investigating.

As to access, the website clearly states the public has access to materials in the archive, while the story clearly states that 'visitors' had access to the area where the disk was lost (which is fairly incredible):

Besides those with official access to sensitive material, the inspector general said janitors, visitors, interns and others passed through the area, according to Issa.

Sounds like it's time to go to the video tape. Surely a facility like an Archives with presidential records would contain security video, right? Having none would be almost as bizarre as Fort Detrick not having any to catch Dr. Ivins or whomever brewing up the anthrax letter material. We await further review.

As we await, how about some speculation? Aside from somebody inadvertently throwing the disk away or deciding they needed an add-on to their home PC, it's hard to imagine either political side being so foolish as to simply steal a hard drive from the archives. Of course, stuffing documents in socks was hard to believe as well, and Obama did sign an EO on presidential records in January, but even so, it still sounds implausible. A more troubling scenario would be somebody selling the disk to a foreign intelligence service or using it as blackmail.

This doesn't appear to be much of a story right now. It could have been big--just imagine had Keith Olbermann been told of this in October 2008. Oh well, maybe if a Republican becomes a suspect.

Ford and the New Standard

Obama will announce today an acceleration of the MPG targets Congress had originally set for 2020, moving America towards a national standard for the first time ever. Most will see this as good and long overdue. The MPG will have to increase anyway to offset the fact the Democrats won't let anyone drill here and now.

But from the sound of this statement, Ford sees this move partially for its implied threat:

"We are pleased that President Obama is taking decisive and positive action as we work together toward one national standard for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions that will be good for the environment and the economy," Ford said in a statement.

As if they've been slogging hard towards this goal for years. Such rank pandering is normally reserved for third world types. Then again, surely GM and Chrysler's reply was "yes sir" "thank you sir, may I have another", so Ford has that going for 'em.

The Never-Ending Storm

Cheney derangement syndrome is apparently contagious. Pulitzer winner Maureen Dowd was caught cutting and pasting Josh Marshall (for all we know they collaborated on JournoList and forgot who was to take credit) and Larry Wilkerson made a timeline error.

Both were evidently in a hurry to move the focus off the fairy tale being told by Pelosi and back on Bushitler where it belongs. Funny, the left thinks it's the right trying to reframe the debate. Apparently it's OK to mislead when attacking an opponent for lying.

Anyway, as told by Maguire, Wilkerson's timeline mistake was explained, sort of, in an email to Spencer Ackerman:

I am basing my conclusions on the fact that DCI Tenet and DDCI McLaughlin presented the information about al-Libi to Secretary Powell in Feb 2003 and not in Feb 2002. The strong impression was that the interrogation had just occurred or, at a minimum, that Tenet had just received the information (otherwise, why wouldn’t they have given it to Powell much earlier, say when he first expressed concerns over the terrorist links some days earlier?).

The al-Libi confession should have been known to State intelligence since it had been bandied about through DIA as Maguire points out. Wilkerson's offhand suggestion they created the confession is obviously silly but was Powell or State read in on every CIA interrogation? Maybe they're still sore for not being trusted. How much of all this has been about ego and professional reputations?

Since Wilkerson's central defense involves Powell's trip to Langley to get his UN story straight devoid of interference by Bushco, let's go to George Tenet. Here he is describing the meeting scenario, beginning on page 372:

We could let the administration write its own script, knowing they might easily mischaracterize complex intelligence information, or we could jump in and help craft the speech itself. We chose the latter.

In other words, they were trying to tamp down the Laurie Mylroie lobby who was convinced Saddam was working with AQ, and Powell was helping. Tenet even scoffs at Scooter Libby for providing Powell...

..a forty-page paper of unknown origin entitled "Iraq's Dangerous Support for Terror" which the secretary promptly dismissed.

If al-Libi was mentioned in that 40 pager it certainly would shoot down Wilkerson completely but Tenet doesn't mention Libi in this section. He also doesn't mention any 11th hour intelligence given to Powell either, which would seem weird if they were working together to clean out some of the AQ-Saddam stuff.

Whatever the case Mr. Wilkerson seems to be suggesting that Pelosi is correct in her accusation that the CIA lied to Congress about various matters, in this case, Iraq. Based on Tenet's narrative (which has admittedly been shaky in some spots) the only way Wilkerson's account could be correct is if somebody in the White House backdoored the al-Libi info through Tenet after realizing Powell was wavering, which calls into question Mr. Tenet's truthfulness. Wonder when somebody will badger interview him on this?

As if on cue, Newsweek today picked up the al-Libi "suicide" story, dropping a hint as to the Obama administration's curiosity:

Al-Libi also had been identified recently by U.S. defense lawyers as a possible key witness in upcoming trials of top terror suspects. "We want answers," said an administration official familiar with the case, who asked not to be identified discussing a sensitive matter. "We want to know what really happened here."

'Demanding answers'? That's rich coming from an administration that still hasn't been up front about AF1 buzzing New York or the president's own college transcripts. Assuming these folks aren't blowing smoke to Newsweek in support of the above gameplan it's logical to wonder if they think someone murdered al-Libi in prison to cover something up? But who would have motive?

Al-Libi had already recanted his AQ-Iraq confession, providing embarrassment to Bush and the CIA, so how much worse could it get? Do we know whether Mr. dead terrorist wasn't prepared to recant his previous recantation? Why should anyone believe him anyway? Well OK yes, the left would have believed him wholeheartedly had he only bashed Cheney--maybe that's a motive for Darth. Or maybe he told the aid workers to screw off for their lack of help and that if ever called he was going back to his AQ-Saddam story. In that case maybe Quadaffy saw an opportunity to score points with Obama.

But the nonsense is already out of the barn. Stories are popping up to suggest that Emperor Cheney ordered interrogators to look for Iraq-AQ links at Gitmo, as if such a thing occurring in 2002 was tantamount to Cheney asking them to find links between AQ and the Pope. The anthrax attacks had not even been blamed on Steven Hatfill in early 2002.

Anyway, here we are talking about the UN, Libby and Iraq instead of the Speaker of the House politicizing national security and accusing the CIA of lying to Congress while Obama runs amok socializing and spreading wealth. Mission accomplished, at least for awhile.

MORE 5/19/09

Colonel Wilkerson appeared on the Maddow show last night:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Weekly Standard sorts it out for us. His answer to the al-Libi timeline mistake was that he'll need to investigate more, as if he shouldn't have already been privy to the details bloggers so easily found by looking at publicly released Senate Intelligence reports. The whole thing has a kind of Clouseau/Barney Fife feel to it.

For instance, Wilkerson made a rather startling statement aside from al-Libi, saying that by 2002 (during the time the al-Libi and Zubaydah interrogations were ongoing) the US had not only "torn AQ a new one" in Afghanistan but done some other things to demobilize them to the point where, he says, people in 'the business' were not as worried about new attacks.

Really? Can he corroborate that, because the Bali bombing occurred in October 2002 and we still didn't have the top two kingpins of AQ in captivity, nor did we have KSM, Hambali, binalshibh, etc. Perhaps the Colonel has inside info he's not able to share to confirm this notion or perhaps his memory is somewhat fuzzy, but considering the Madrid and London attacks occurred after 2002 that certainly was an erroneous assumption if anyone made it.

But it does lend itself to a line of attack that suggests the administration was covering up their success against AQ to prepare for Saddam, and were torturing the necessary talking point links out of unsuspecting detainees to help them get there. And that Powell and Tenet were the fall guys should anything go wrong.

The Bernardin Factor

During Obama's Notre Dame speech he mentioned the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin several times, whom the New York Times described as a voice of reconciliation. It's not hard to see why Obama would be drawn to him but perhaps there's another reason he dropped the name. Here's Amanda Carpenter reminding everyone in 2006 about the "Bernardin Amendment":

As an Illinois senator, Obama introduced the “Bernardin Amendment,” which would have inserted language from a pastoral letter by the late Roman Catholic Cardinal Joseph Bernardin into a universal health care program. The amendment contained Bernardin’s line: “Health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity, and there is an obligation for society to ensure that every person is able to realize that right.” The bill, which did not pass, was to be funded with money taken from tobacco companies.

What better place to field test a religious approach to socialized medicine than at Notre Dame?

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God’s Providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union.

Shouldering each other's burdens sounds inspirational until one digs down a few inches to find the rocky collectivist subsoil. America was founded on rugged individualism and the rights of the individual to pursue happiness, which may not always be defined as shouldering their neighbor's burdens or mortage payments. Or did Reverend Wright already clear all that up?

Obama at Notre Dame

Here's Obama sending off the graduates at Notre Dame with a message of tolerance and respect for diverging beliefs:



How do we work together to reduce unintended pregnancies without discouraging pre-marital sex, by the way? Anyway, contrast that to Obama's words at the 100 day rally in St. Louis talking about diverging beliefs in regards to protests over his spending policies:



The Notre Dame speech was probably a decent Obama speech since he excels at delivering forward-thinking and inspirational messages full of hope. But as he said during the campaign, words do have meaning, so let's throw caution to the wind and parse a few of those phrases in a search for the true meaning of his words. Start with this:

Your generation must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it.

Sounds like a modern comparison to Noah. But what exactly is he suggesting will be destroyed, the climate or the generation? Either way it's rather draconian and melodramatic, since there's not a computer model in existence showing a "destroyed" climate over the next century and it's doubtful global warming would eliminate or destroy the graduating class of 2009.

And, since he didn't directly blame the climate change on the graduates or their parents, how does he propose this generation should affect any change on the weather of earth, which makes up climate?

Here's a comment that presumably targets terrorists and tinpots:

Your generation must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many.

Indeed, but if the harm-doers will 'stop at nothing' then how does he propose we 'seek peace' with those people?

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.

Through world government? Because otherwise, the radical Muslims have their own view of a world family and in theirs we are basically slaves. Minor clarification needed.

Next he moved into the goal of changing human nature itself (don't accuse him of being soft on goal-setting):

The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice.

Those on the atheist side usually refer to it as Darwinism or natural selection but Obama did mention original sin. But even Christ said the poor will always be present. One could use their imagination and connote another attack on the AIG bonus recipients too, something Limbaugh might have fun with.

Next, the One did the two-step around abortion, taking both sides. He's good at that:

Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Like naming a dog Miss California? Or making gestures of waving tea bags? Or using the handicapped as a joke prop? Or Rush Limbaugh? Or Hannity? Or Joe the Plumber? Surely caricatures like Jeanine Garofolo, Bill Maher, Perez Hilton, and Keith Olbermann will clarify all this soon.

MORE 5/18/09

Other views. Debbie points out some hypocrisy. Is she reducing things to caricature or being an intolerant bigot? Politico reminds us of Obama's pay grade.

Another Place, Another Time

One of the Green Room guys at Hot Air has unearthed a comment from Miss Nancy in May 2002 regards our friend Abu Z:

Since his capture in March, Abu Zubaydah has shared some valuable information, says a senior U.S. intelligence source. "He's not b.s.ing us on everything." Then again, says Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, "he is also very skilled at avoiding interrogation. He is an agent of disinformation."

Zubaydah was the only top-ranking AQ fish we'd captured at that time and his complicity in past acts was well-known before Bush arrived, perhaps even to a long-time member of the House Intelligence Committee. Tenet described Abu as someone who thought he was more clever than his interrogators. The passage of time has softened Abu's rep but we have the internets!

In early 1999, Hijazi and Abu Hoshar contacted Khalil Deek, an American citizen and an associate of Abu Zubaydah who lived in Peshawar, Pakistan, and who, with Afghanistan-based extremists, had created an electronic version of a terrorist manual, the Encyclopedia of Jihad. They obtained a CD-ROM of this encyclopedia from Deek.

This encyclopedia apparently contained counter-interrogation techniques, some of which were probably familiar to Zubaydah. His history also included coordinatng the Millennium attacks, as explained by 60 Minutes II in late 2001:

Other holy sites were on the hit list: a hill near the Dead Sea where Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Thousands of pilgrims were expected there. Another target: Mount Nebo, which Moses climbed to see the promised land. But the top target was the Radisson hotel in downtown Amman, its 400 rooms fully booked by Americans and Israelis for the big millennium party. Jordanian agents got word that the man known as Abu Ahmed the American was boasting there wouldn't be enough body bags in Jordan to hold all the corpses.

Everything was set. The planning had been completed, the explosives were hidden in Amman. Abu Ahmed the American was about to return here from Afghanistan. It might have come off if Jordanian intelligence hadn't intercepted a phone call on the evening of Nov. 30 from Osama bin Laden's lieutenant in Pakistan to the cell in Amman. The lieutenant spoke in code. His words were: “The grooms are ready for the big wedding.”

The message had come from Abu Zubaydah. Osama bin Laden's chief recruiter.

The story goes on to recount the American version thwarted by an alert border guard spooking an over-anxious Ahmed Ressam (any mention of the Millennium plot always brings to mind Sandy Berger's socks caper and why he wanted that after-action report so badly).

And while this history doesn't serve as a smoking gun as to whether Pelosi was briefed specifically on waterboarding in September 2002 it does serve as a reminder of how dangerous and important they believed Zubaydah was at the time and how it was seen as key to get information from him before something else happened. That would explain why Pelosi and Goss asked the CIA whether they were 'doing enough' during that meeting.

It also serves as an example of how the public perception has changed in eight years. We've either reverted completely to a 9/10 frame of mind, squabbling over moral questions that would have given few pause when officials were scrambling to stop further horrible attacks, or Bush actually won the GWoT when nobody was looking, nullifying future threats. History, intelligence, and common sense would suggest neither--the public is surely still aware of threats, moreso than before 9/11. But after seven years of war and the Democratic propaganda against it they're confused as to the real enemy.

The Skunks

Chas Freeman, the man bounced out of a nomination to Obama's National Intelligence Council, is quoted in the Times' Sunday rumination about why Obama hasn't changed the Middle East yet, leaving this sidelong quip:

“You can’t really tell anything by what happened to me and the fact that he didn’t step forward to take on the skunks,” he said, referring to his own appointment controversy and Mr. Obama’s silence amid critics’ attacks.

So, who exactly are these skunks? He didn't specify, but the so-called Israeli lobby was his loudest detractor, including the likes of Senator Schumer:

"His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration," said Senator Chuck Schumer in a statement. "I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing."

If he would use a term like "skunks" to describe those who voiced protest at this nomination then it appears Obama made the right call to maintain silence over his departure.

Biden Blows Secret Location

VP Biden has apparently blown the cover of a Vice Presidential 'secret location', at least one of them:

Ever wonder about that secure, undisclosed location where Dick Cheney secreted himself after the 9/11 attacks? Joe Biden reveals the bunker-like room is at the Naval Observatory in Washington, where Cheney lived for eight years and which is now home to Biden. The veep related the story to his head-table dinner mates when he filled in for President Obama at the Gridiron Club earlier this year.

Actually the veil has been lifting ever since the Emperor left DC, which was the same day Google Maps/Earth unfuzzed its photo of the Naval Observatory.

Well, it's nice that a man so prone to verbal gaffes can laugh at concepts like the continuity of government. Or maybe we should hope number two in succession is just crazy like a fox.

Side Tracks

Live with the Edmonton Symphony in 1971..unfortunately there's no video but I can distinctly remember the picture on the sleeve of the single..



Continuing with the Latin sound..





Speaking of sleeve covers...never mind. The mid-late 60s/early 70s were certainly a weird and transformative period in music history, reflective of society in general.

Obama Chooses Huntsman

CNN is reporting:

President Obama announced Saturday that his choice for U.S. ambassador to China is moderate Republican Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who expressed some surprise at the appointment.

Should he have been 'surprised'? After all, he must read the papers and talk to his aides, who surely told him of this recent quip:

President Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, tells the U.S. News and World Report that Governor Jon Huntsman makes him, a "wee bit queasy...I think he's really out there speaking a lot of truth about the direction of the party."

I think this calls for at least a small hmmmmm.

Tenet on "Torture" and other things

Panetta is holding the fort:

CIA Director Leon Panetta says agency records show CIA officers briefed lawmakers truthfully in 2002 on methods of interrogating terrorism suspects, but it is up to Congress to reach its own conclusions about what happened.

As Kit Bond said on Morning Joe, CIA briefers don't brief legislators on what they might do. It seems a done deal, although Maguire's a bit wobbly. So is Allahpundit, although such trepedation comes from being burned before:

I know, I know — “it’s not that she condoned waterboarding, it’s that she lied” — but if the left forces her out, it won’t be because she’s a weasel. It’ll be because she didn’t have the moral acuity to throw caution to the wind after 9/11 and shrug off the odds of more attacks all so that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed wouldn’t be pretend-drowned. Click the image to listen.

Based on their track record of using this stuff for political gain it's fairly unwise to accept that any of them want Pelosi gone without a pound or ten of flesh in return.

And that pound or ten probably involves prosecutions for torture, so let's travel back and see what the DCIA said about all this in his tome about Zubaydah. Keep in mind ole Abu predicted we'd find Zarqawi in Iraq during his interrogation in Egypt, so not everything he said was available for recanting. Also keep in mind we sent a specialist from Johns Hopkins to save Abu's life after he took three gunshots from the Pakistani police during his capture. So here's Tenet from page 241, with my emphasis:

Now that we had an undoubted resource in our hands--the highest ranking al-Qa'ida official captured to date--we opened discussions with the National Security Council as to how to handle him, since holding and interrogating large numbers of al-Qa'ida operatives had never been part of our plan. But Zubaydah and a small number of other extremely highly placed terrorists potentially had information that might save thousands of lives. We wondered what we could legitimately do to get that information.

..snip..

CIA officers came up with a series of interrogation techniques that would be carefully monitored at all times to ensure the safety of the prisoner. The administration and the Department of Justice were fully briefed and approved the use of these tactics. After we received written Department of Justice guidance on the interrogation issue, we briefed the chairmen and ranking members of our oversight committees. While they were not asked to formally approve the program, as it was conducted under the president's unilateral authorities, I can recall no objections being raised.

..snip..

Like many of the al-Qa'ida detainees, Abu Zubaydah originally thought he could outsmart his questioners. He would offer up bits and pieces of information that he thought would give the impression of his providing useful material, without really compromising operational security.

But Abu Zubaydah ultimately provided a motherlode of information,

..snip..

A published report in 2006 contended that Abu Zubaydah was mentally unstable and that the administration had overstated his importance. Baloney.

So the CIA came up with the techniques, not Cheney. This also stands opposed to FBI expert witness Ali Soufan. Let's also keep in mind that Zubaydah was part of the 'system blinking red' warning that Tenet gave Rice in summer 2001 about pending attacks, one which the left used to accuse Bush of failing to connect dots.

Yet somehow, after the 9/11 dust settled, Zubahday became mentally unstable and overstated--perfect for setting up the torture canard. And somehow Pelosi developed a sudden moral epiphany she had been hiding for years. Sorry, if anyone deserves to be prosecuted for this stuff maybe it's the ones who were politicizing it. The war isn't even over.

MORE 5/15/09

While it seems that Panetta is involved in a low-level war with Pelosi, maybe both are still just covering their rumps. His letter today did not specify that CIA briefers specifically told Pelosi and Goss that waterboarding had occurred, only that it was a tool. There was probably a wink-wink in there that both understood at the time, which could be why Goss is so upset and why Nancy is holding the fort with Clintonian word parsing darts in hand.

Panetta is throwing it back to Congress (as he should) without providing the actual noose, which will have to come in the form of a writ, presumably through Nancy. Meanwhile Obama is nowhere to be found on this. Maybe he's out having a smoke near the swingset.

WALKING BACK HER CAT 5/16/09

Oh brother:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has backed down slightly in her fight with the CIA, saying that she really meant only to criticize the Bush administration rather than career officials.

"My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe," Pelosi said in a statement.

The loyalists and perhaps some in the media will buy her "Bush lied" diversion, but will the Democratic leadership? Meanwhile, where is Obama? While the entire country is looking back his official posture is that he's looking forward, even though he lit the match by releasing the OLC memos. I suppose you can't blame him for hiding in the tall grass since so far only the token Fox guy has bothered to notice. We'll see if the Sunday pundits can find him.

Ehrman, Interrupted

I have an open mind when it comes to looking over Biblical history and was therefore willing to give this guy's theories a read. That is, until reaching this:

He says he doesn't believe the followers of Jesus saw their master bodily rise from the dead, but something else.

"My best guess is that what happened is what commonly happens today when someone has a loved one die -- they sometimes think they see them in a vision," Ehrman says. "I think some of the disciples had visions."

Visions? Shared visions by numerous people? Seems amazing that a guy who's written 20 books can stake his entire ideological claim by simply substituting one unsubstantiated belief for another. Well, surely the doubting Thomases of today want to believe him--in the same way their namesake didn't believe.

Cheney's Request

The Telegraph has a story about another prisoner Dick Cheney's office apparently wanted to waterboard, or maybe place in a cell with a caterpillar:

Dick Cheney, the former US vice-president, suggested waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner whom White House officials suspected might possess knowledge of a potential connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, it has emerged

The guy, Muhammed Khudair al-Dulaimi, is virtually unknown to Google. The only first page hit of significance linked to Yossef Bodansky's book 'The Secret History of the Iraq War', which describes him thusly:

An expert in bomb-making techniques, remote-control fuses, special operations, sabotage and assassination, Khudair established a network of former Mukhabarat operatives to train and supply the growing Islamist networks in the Sunni heartland.

This is backed up by other reporting that claims the Baathists were funding and equipping Islamist cells for the insurgency. Here's the way the Telegraph described Dulaimi:

head of the M-14 section of the Mukhabarat secret police, whose responsibilities included chemical weapons and contacts with terrorist groups.

Wonder where they got the M14 job description, and wonder if "contacts with terrorist groups" was there before 9/11? They talked of bomb-making, which brings this guy back to mind. Anyway, it appears Dulaimi was an early capture since he wasn't on the original deck of cards but a lot of his tribal kin are still on the current Iraqi 41 most wanted list. Saddam's lawyer was also from the Dulaimi tribe. Sounds like a crime family.

The reality-based community might try to make a deal out of this to deflect Pelosi-gate, since the queen herself referred to Bush lying about Iraq in her shaky defense presser thing yesterday. We know the only bigger strawmonster than Cheney is the idea that al Qaeda and Saddam could never have worked together because they hated each other so frickin bad, even though they both hated the very same enemies.

But it's also possible Cheney was living up to his paranoid reputation, chasing around ghosts trying to use any means to prove Feith and the others at OSP were correct. Otherwise it seems reasonable to assume we would have heard more about Mr. Dulaimi somewhere along the way. That is, unless he never cracked. Wonder where he is now?

Wheel of Torture

Pelosi grabbed the big political wheel in 2002 and gave it a spin..



And it's come up with "lose a turn" in 2009. Too bad. It was only a matter of time before the never-ending campaign to tar Bushco would come back to haunt the Democrats. The Rick act from Casablanca only goes so far. The coup de grace--her diversion into the "Bush lied" Iraq thing, worth of a message board cowboy. As Clinton would say, game over Madame Speaker.

While this may seem like a loser moment from the Dems there's always a silver lining. More than a few would probably prefer Hoyer as Speaker anyway and today's denial of Cheney's document request perhaps signals there are already deals being made somewhere, somehow. They didn't put Panetta in there for nothing. The only wildcard is the rogues down in the bowels who might leak something.

As to Obama's "180" on the detainee abuse pictures, well it's pretty much a big picture win-win. By saying they are "too bad" to release he hits the Bush crew where it hurts without actually hitting them. He stirs up the jihadis and the Euros. And the press won't blast him for a flip-flop like they would a Repub. If the docs are later forced out by the courts his hands will be clean (despite McCarthy's opinion). Smart guy.

Besides, all this hoopla keeps the debate off the spiraling deficits he helped create, bad financial news in April, an end to the war on drugs, and a less than adequate explanation of Air Force One buzzing Manhattan. And Joe Biden.

But in the bigger big picture--the one that encompasses the cohesiveness of America--none of this is good. If Osama is alive he must be laughing and praising Allah for what appears to be a complete unraveling of the fabric of society in slow motion before our very eyes.

TOUCHE 5/14/09

The CIA used an Executive Order, "as amended", to deny Cheney's documents. What was the amendment? It was the one used by BushCheney in 2003 to allow White House aides to push back on Joe Wilson, and Cheney to claim himself part of both the legislative and executive branches, and neither.

Little Miss Marcy is beside herself, but what she doesn't seem to realize is that these guys are the ultimate masters at protecting their turf. The whole Wilson/Plame thing was a pushback on the lack of WMDs, ie, don't blame us or we'll hurt you. They are currently doing the same to Madame Pelosi and it will only get worse if Panetta doesn't stop it, or maybe even if he does.

Geopolitical Correctness

This is one of those stories that knocks the political correctness ball so far out of the park that's it almost too good to check...

Born and raised in Mozambique and now a naturalized U.S. citizen, Serodio, 45, has filed a lawsuit against a New Jersey medical school, claiming he was harassed and ultimately suspended for identifying himself during a class cultural exercise as a "white African-American."

It's a juicy example of how silly it is to use geographic regions to identify race--if correct. The story is being told by his lawyer so we might not be getting the full picture. Maybe the guy also had a "W" sticker on his car or something.

But regardless of whether we have all the facts, it's not hard to imagine a few college kids being offended by such a blasphemous construct in this day and age. Matter of fact the complainer could have very well been a white person. Wonder if the same folks might be similarly offended when the wife of the 2004 Democratic nominee for president and another former resident of Mozambique supposedly identified herself as an African-American as well?

It's not rocket science. Let's see, immigrant from Africa, naturalized US citizen, yep, African-American. Why would ABC need to call the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to get the definition? And Lord, why would they even try to answer (they didn't)?

Anyway, with all the silliness going around all I can think of is this...



Don't ask me why.

When Tax Cuts are Good

When they go to newspapers! Notice the story brings in Boeing and the timber industry in a kind of misery loves company gesture to the reader to tamp down outrage. The difference of course is that timber and airplane companies aren't in the business of informing the public about the workings of government, or in this case, the workings of those who saved them.

Surely those receiving tax bailouts from the Democratic state government will continue their role as watchdogs of democracy and corruption. Or short of that, sources cartoons and help wanted ads.

The Martyr Play

Is waterboarding a few murdering AQ sociopaths morally comparable to the nasty things done by the Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge, or Saddam? Does it rank Bush beside the world's worst dictators? Are the Democrats willing to find out?

It would appear so--at least in the rank and file--as there seems to be no story strong enough to stop the talk. Obama has the shutoff valve but he would seemingly rather let it run it's course than ramp it up as his followers desire, as Maguire suggests. Why would he want the talk to continue after its usefulness is gone?

Maybe that explains why it's Cheney out on the talk show circuit keeping the story in the news right now. He knows where this could go. The Dems also know he knows what happened (harken back to this exchange) and they know he knows their rhetoric has been shallow, vacuous and crafted for political expediency. The further into the woods we go the higher the likelihood something more inconvenient might emerge.

At the same time Cheney is by himself on this. As long as this posture continues the press and popular culture will continue to gleefully paint him as an even less sympathetic figure than the men he 'tortured', ie, the 9/11 perpetrators, regardless of what transpires (such as a refusal by Obama to release the docs he asked for). Therefore two things seem likely--one, the Republican Party will continue to be associated with Cheney, Limbaugh and Hannity in the worst fashion, which is the general lefty goal here.

Or, if the right goes after Cheney or he goes back to the secret location, the left will have free rein to keep hammering the associations with the end goal of defining the Bush legacy not as one of success against terrorism, but as one of torture, torture, lies and corruption. What to do?

Well, there's one wild out of the box solution that might work, and it might save the Republican Party for 2010 to boot: have George Bush offer himself up as a martyr for prosecution in the United States court system on charges of allowing torture but only under one condition--that Obama pardons everyone from his administration under presidential level first. Remember, Holder has the prosecutorial discretion left to him by Obama on this matter.

Imagine the media circus. Would the Democrats relish an extended third world-like trial involving a former president who was by all accounts trying to connect dots to stop a possible WMD attack on an American city? And what might we find along the way as the press covered every uttered word as they did in the OJ and Clinton impeachment trials, keeping the focus off Obama and his policies of change for months and months?

But what if Justice declined the offer? Pelosi--already compromised on the issue--would look exceedingly hypocritical if she took a less than gung-ho posture on it, although the Obamapress would do their best to help everybody with the spin. Bush would have to be careful not to let the Dems get wind of such an impending move lest someone leak it to Obama so he could rush and issue a blanket pardon first or indictment first. But it might work.

Of course it'll never happen for a variety of reasons. But just imagine the gesture of leadership; of jeopardizing his own legacy and future to save the party and allow the country to move on from this mess. Who knows, it might even elevate the image of a tattered old party just in time for 2010.

MyChrystal to Afghanistan

Replacing McKeirnan...

June 26, 2006 issue - No one would have mentioned his name at all if President George W. Bush hadn't singled him out in public. Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, West Point '76, is not someone the Army likes to talk about. He isn't even listed in the directory at Fort Bragg, N.C., his home base. That's not because McChrystal has done anything wrong—quite the contrary, he's one of the Army's rising stars—but because he runs the most secretive force in the U.S. military. That is the Joint Special Operations Command, the snake-eating, slit-their-throats "black ops" guys who captured Saddam Hussein and targeted Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi.

JSOC is part of what Vice President Dick Cheney was referring to when he said America would have to "work the dark side" after 9/11. To many critics, the veep's remark back in 2001 fostered his rep as the Darth Vader of the war on terror and presaged bad things to come, like the interrogation abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. But America also has its share of Jedi Knights who are fighting in what Cheney calls "the shadows." And McChrystal, an affable but tough Army Ranger, and the Delta Force and other elite teams he commands are among them.

Here's the link to the above, which also mentions his "'direct action' forces or so-called SMUs--Special Mission Units--whose job is to kill or capture bad guys". Apparently he was a favorite of Rumsfeld and various other neocons, but the milbloggers will know better. In the interim, this certainly does appear to be a new direction as Gates indicated. Wonder if the left will become outraged that Obama is now taking a "Cheney-like approach" to fighting the good war?

A Ghost is Dead

The left's favorite terrorist, a sort of cause celebre for the pitfalls of enhanced interrogation, has died:

British journalist and historian Andy Worthington, an expert and author on Guantanamo, reports that the man who had supplied a key false tie between Iraq and al-Qaeda --- after being tortured in Egypt, where he had been rendered by the U.S. --- has died in a Libyan prison. "Dead of suicide in his cell," according to a Libyan newspaper.

Al-Libi was one of the ghosts mentioned in 2007 by the WaPo's Craig Whitlock, including another disappearing act, Mustafa Setmariam Nasar. Torture-warriors like Worthington and Steven Grey might wonder whether al-Libi's suicide was too convenient--we are talking about Libya here--but why would they kill him aside from incompetence? It's not like he hadn't done damage to the Bush administration by calling his original confession a lie.

Besides, with Obama now in office there would appear to be no smoking gun. Until one surfaces it seems more prudent to believe he succumbed to his own hand or that the Libyans killed him to further one of their own goals vis a vis local terrorism. An announcement of suicide won't go over well in the fundamentalist ranks or on the Arab street.

Unfortunately his death also leaves up in the air the question of when he lied. Did he lie about Saddam's regime providing training to AQ terrorists at Salmon Pak during his initial confession or did he lie during his recantation after the WMDs weren't found and the left was starting to score points against Bush over Iraq? Tenet wondered about this in his book, pondering thusly on pages 353-354:

He (al-Libi) clearly lied. We just don't know when. Did he lie when he first said that al-Qa'ida members received training in Iraq or did he lie when he said they did not? In my mind, either case might still be true. Perhaps early on, he was under pressure, assumed his interrogators already knew the story, and sang away. After time passed and it became clear that he would not be harmed, he might have changed his story to cloud the minds of his captors. Al-Qa'ida operatives are trained to do just that.

But for some reason, this part of al-Libi's recanted confession gets no respect (page 269):

(he) had provided the Egyptians with information that he later recanted, that al-Qa'ida had collaborated with Russian organized crime to import into New York "cannisters containing nuclear material."

Lying for jihad is hardly shocking. Meanwhile, surely al-Libi's demise will spark more discussion on the practice of rendition, a Bush-era/Clinton-era tool Obama seems loath to completely eliminate.

MORE 5/12/09

The mainstream press is starting to pick up the story a bit. Here's CNN, which is fairly balanced--they don't purport that al-Libi's recantation was true while his confession was a lie--but they do pass along a tasty morsel:

"I think he would be able to tell us more about the secret CIA prison program and the rendition program," Sullivan said.

Yes, nothing like keeping hope alive that a terrorist who despises the west to the point of killing infants if necessary would be used to glean more information about the real criminals. So there's your conspiracy.


Speaking of ghosts...

Mark from Regime of Terror flags this very interesting AP story on the 15 May terrorist organization and the elusive Abu Ibrahim:

He's been described as a "genius." The "grandfather of bomb makers." A "Michelangelo." Or as one former Pentagon official said, "Dr. Frankenstein."

His infamous career stretches back decades. He has been linked to several terrorist organizations, including Black September and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

But it wasn't until Ibrahim broke away from the PFLP in 1979 and formed his own outfit called "15 May" that he began forging his reputation as a master bomb maker, attracting the attention of foreign intelligence services around the globe.

Named after the date on which Israel was founded, Ibrahim based 15 May in Baghdad and began perfecting his unique bombs. He experimented widely, devising a particularly nasty bomb that involved filling the cooling pipes of a refrigerated truck with liquid explosives.

It's always been interesting that the administration never made an issue of this group. Perhaps it was because Reagan was in office at the time and playing him against the Iranians (maybe that's why AP is pursuing it). It certainly seems to paint Baghdad as terrorism central. Anyway, here's what I wrote about this last year:

As to Ibrahim, he remains at large along with Rashid's wife Christine Pinter, whom he met through connections with the Baader-Meinhof Gang.

Admittedly all of this was in the 80s, but then again:

"He still made the bombs and he still taught people how to do it," Kline said. "He had a little shop in Baghdad.

He apparently shared his knowledge. Perhaps the bomber of the WTC in 1993, Ramzi Yousef (who is part Palestinian) got some indirect help from this guy, who knows. Anyway, it's no wonder this story is getting light mainstream airplay.

Clarke, Again

Richard Clarke is back at it again, this time exercising his self-appointed absolute moral authority over a new GOP commercial showing the Twin Towers coming down:

“But what is more disturbing is their brazen use of imagery and the memory of 9/11 to score political points. Thousands of Americans tragically died that day, and for the GOP to think it can win elections by denigrating their memory is disgraceful.”

OK, we could go through the littany of reasons why this guy is a partisan, such as when he seemed to agree with Keith Olbermann that Bush lied us into war. We could point to his kiss and tell book before the 2004 election deriding Bush for not connecting dots and focusing on Saddam, a clear effort to help get John Kerry elected (whom he was working for along with Joe Wilson). Or we could make reference to the movie deal with Redford, which the studios apparently backed off from last year due to the glut of anti-Bush war flicks. But that's way too much effort.

He's right about one thing though--despite their sharing the truth on Obama's haphazard approach to the 9/11 perpetrators the GOP's strategy is feckless and misguided. Do they not understand that the Dems have worked tirelessly since the WMDs weren't found to tarnish Bush/Cheney's accomplishments in fighting terror to the point that the new focus is torture not actual terrorists? The only socially acceptable politicization of the GWoT is demanding truth commissions--failing to connect dots is so 2003. And images of the smoldering towers can still inflict pain as evidenced by Obama's recent buzzing of lower Manhattan with an F16 and 747-200. They're better off laying low and filling the quiver for next year. The Dems will do what they always do if given enough time.

Others: GM's Place

Baring Arms

We're talking Michelle Obama's arms, not weapons. They seem to be making some big splash, as if no first lady has ever possessed them before.

Now, I freely bash her husband on here all the time. And I didn't care much for the "for the first time I'm proud" unpatriotic crud, but c'mon, there's nothing wrong with her arms. They are fine arms, and appear perfectly capable of wrestling the POTUS into submission if necessary.

But the best thing about her bare arms is the message--to the enemy. They cannot stand bare arms:

"No practising Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow," it said.

It's almost as bad as music to the hardcores. So on this Mother's Day may God bless Michelle Obama and her arms, and may he damn those offended by them.

Feherty

Since this is a politics blog with a golf theme the David Feherty comment about Pelosi and Reid would seem a perfect fit. For those who're in the dark here, Feherty is a irreverent golf commentator for CBS who also writes columns for various publications laced with irreverence. Here's the quip that sent the dust flying:

"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this though," Feherty wrote toward the end of his column. "Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Pretty brutal. Surely all the troops don't think that way--a lot would probably substitute Reid for Pelosi after his "this war is lost" comment.

Of course the Rathergate network is distancing itself from their employee's observation--not much choice there. And of course the chickenhearts of the PGA Tour are running like scared girls who've just seen a spider, tripping over their skirts at Feherty's exercise of free speech, which the soldiers are fighting for. Free speech like this:

And while I’m on the subject of vice, for my money, Sarah Palin came along too late. She’s waaay better-looking than Dick Cheney, and when she shoots at something, you can bet that at least the damn thing will be dead.

Or this:

I believe in the death penalty, especially for pro-lifers, child molesters, those opposed to gay marriage, and for stupid dancing in the end zone.

Where is the outrage? Actually the real outrage would be the phony troop-supporters over at Soros-funded Media Matters "demanding an apology" from an atheist who stands with them on many issues. All is not forgotten, brownshirts.

Anyway, Sunday is the final round of the Players and its infamous 17th Island green. Here are some memories...

Side Tracks

Since Memphis is called the "birthplace of the blues" it seems appropriate to sprinkle some amidst this weekly feature. Conventional legend has it that W.C. Handy wrote the first commercial blues song in a bar on Beale Street here in Memphis in 1912. Muddy Waters got his start here as well, seen here singing perhaps his signature tune..



Other blues artists managed to influence white rock/blues in the 60s and 70s, Sonny Boy Williamson among them..



There were others, like Elmore James and Robert Johnson, but predominately white artists such as the Allman Brothers and Eric Clapton raked in all the cash and fame.

Scare Force One: Epilogue?

Mulligan gets a mulligan, and Caldera gets the bus.

The report and an underexposed picture were emailed to the press this afternoon. Were they using disposable cameras? As to the review, it was performed by the White House Counsel's office so it's hard to determine how objective it might be aside from not at all.

Digging into the review it mentions all the times the Colonel in charge coordinated with the Deputy in the WHMO but said nothing about why they authorized the mission; why there were F16s; where they came from; or why the general public was never notified in advance as the inital plans called for. The report mentions concurrent reviews being conducted by DoD and FAA, which is a classic blame-shifting exercise in government. By the time they come out--well you know.

Here's something else puzzling:

Gibbs said Obama has ordered a review of how the White House Military Office is set up, and how it reports to the White House and the Air Force.

That review, to be conducted by Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will also offer recommendations to Obama designed to ensure that such an incident will not happen again, Gibbs said.

Which is odd since the review blasted Caldera, who then resigned. Problem not solved? Well, we still don't know why the event occurred at all, so perhaps this is an additional effort to cover up the true purpose by making the WHMO appear dysfunctional. More bus riders.

previous posts 1,2

MORE 5/9/09

Although the New York Times didn't think the story warranted top coverage on their web page they clearly had to cover the story due to the fact it was a huge embarrassment and due to the fact it occurred, well, in New York. So, Mr. Enchantment was put on the case and came home with a report sans the normal curiosity the Times seems to have about government actions (with one possible exception, covered near the end).

It was clear from the review that everything was funneled to Caldera, who was the only man standing between total White House knowledge and total ignorance, ie, plausible deniability. His underling Mulligan (you can't make this stuff up) took pains to keep his boss in the loop but the boss was just too beat from jetting-setting around the world with White House brass and taking pain pills for his back spasms to comprehend anything. The review mentioned that Mulligan didn't feel right about going around the chain to inform the WH directly and assumed boss man would take care of it--and this is entirely believable.

What about the military side, though? Colonel Turner went out of his way to keep people informed, including a General above him, as well as a press release to Air Force Public Affairs and mentioned that FAA PA would take care of questions in the New York area. The report doesn't say whether Turner had previously briefed any superiors, only saying he wanted the General 'in the loop', which suggests no previous contact. Is that believable?

The fact Turner's email was on a Saturday before the Monday event seems to take a lot of brass--including SecDef Gates--off the hook, since if Gates knew about the flight a week in advance or more it's reasonable to assume he might have mentioned it in passing to fellow cabinet members or the White House; "hey cool, we're taking AF1 over the Statue of Liberty Monday for a photo shot", etc.

But as the review states, the real buffoonery was the failure to inform the general public as was originally envisioned. Had this occurred the entire thing would have been a non-event or perhaps a political point for Obama. Somebody also had to know that a surprise attack might turn out the opposite. Perhaps if Mulligan/Caldera were under the impression the event was to be explained a day in advance to New Yorkers the finger of blame shifts to whomever didn't get that done, either the FAA or Turner. The Times seems to prefer Turner:

The White House report states that while some officials decided on “public outreach efforts” to notify people in advance about the flight, the commander of the Presidential Airlift Group, Col. Scott Turner of the Air Force, decided that the memo warning New York-area officials of the flyover would be marked “official use only,” and that it would tell government agencies not to disclose the event. Information would be provided, the report said, “only if asked.”

But the review states the following on page 3 (emphasis added):

On Thursday evening, April 23, Colonel Turner sent an email to the Deputy Director describing the final details of the flight. It stated that for security reasons, details about the flight would be treated as "FODO" ("for official use only"). Federal, state, and local authorities would be notified on April 24, and coordination with the "general public" would begin "on or after 26 Apr."

In other words, he seems to be saying both--the memo to NY authorities was to be FOUO but the general public would be notified in advance. This occurred on the 24th; Mulligan then forwards the info to Caldera, who claims he didn't read his email. Mulligan also insists he personally visited Caldera's office on the same day and discussed it with him, something Caldera considers a passing mention in the hall on a Friday afternoon (a good illustration of how government works, btw). But if this was indeed some kind of a submarine job on the White House by the military office it would have included Caldera, since Colonel Turner was under the impression Gibbs and Messina were being briefed.

The Times seems to be keeping hope alive, though (emphasis added again):

Mr. Obama appointed Mr. Caldera to lead the White House Military Office in December, citing his 30-year career as a soldier, lawyer, legislator and law professor. It was a rare political appointment for a position that is usually held by a ranking officer in the military.

As if to suggest the possibility of military shenanigans, ie, animosity in the ranks that a civilian political hack grabbed a plum position somebody had their eyes on leading to a hit job. Gates has been tasked to investigate the decision-making process of how training missions are generated, so perhaps there's some smoke to that fire. We still have no clue as to who exactly ordered the photo mission or why, and why the Alabama ANG Red Tail fighter was there, which brings in other possibilities.

Finally, it's still unbelievable that the Mayor of New York would not have been consulted directly on such a thing. The initial stories blamed it on a rookie aide--once again we are asked to believe that one man stood between knowledge and incredible ignorance, just as in the WHMO. Or, a rather bizarre coincidence of gross incompetence, one might say.

Time to Look Forward

Boy, what a shocker:

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

Now that Pelosi has been caught lying perhaps that takes the wind out of the far left's sails on going after Bushco. Matter of fact, this needs to be nipped soon because any protracted scandal involving Pelosi only serves to make Bushco look better going forward. Surely the left will invent some ingenious spin that the bloggers will feed the mainstreamers, but this is pretty raw meat.

Meanwhile, this could also focus some light on the ACLU's lawsuit against Boeing for providing the aircraft used in Bush's rendition program and Obama's current defense of it. Time for a new story to grab the headlines.

MORE 5/7/09

Cheney just can't keep it zipped these days, telling radio host Scott Hennen the US didn't just lay KSM and others on the waterboard without first trying the conventional methods. And they worked. Right on cue, here's the HuffPo's Sam Stein furthering a convenient distortion in an effort to call Cheney a liar:

The remarks, delivered during an interview with Scott Hennen, a conservative North Dakota radio host, glossed over the 266 instances in which the United States reportedly used waterboarding on two terrorist suspects -- a figure that would suggest the technique was either not effective or not really used as a last-resort option.

In other words, the Bush folks were just having fun dunkin' some terrorist mug. Problem is, his numbers don't add up to KSM's five count, nor do they square with the government. But like the 1 million Iraqi dead canard, there are some who will stoop to any depth if the cause is furthered.

PUSHBACK TIME 5/8/09

Everyone was wondering how the left would spin this. One way is to discourage any mainstream coverage, which has been largely successful--Drudge remains the only site prominently covering the story. Meanwhile some on the left are pointing to this Plum Line article, which mentions an accompanying memo sent by CIA Director with the original package of documents that appeared to finger Speaker Pelosi. Sargent makes a pretty big leap:

That would appear to be a concession that the CIA isn’t willing to vouch for the accuracy of the info about the briefings in the docs, and that only further inquiry will produce a reliable recounting of what happened.

Or, that Panetta knew the documents were damaging and was trying to soften the political blow. The memo indicates these were the best recollections based on Memos for the Record. Other than recordings, what else is there?

Scalpel and Mirrors

Obama's Press Office has announced his upcoming "Terminations, Reductions, and Savings in the 2010 Budget" to be released Thursday, mentioning about 17 billion in cuts he wants amidst a trillion plus budget request. Just don't call it a hatchet.

In essence these cuts--half in the military--are actually a good example of 'spreading the wealth around'. In normal reality cuts mean something has actually been cut whereas in Obama land we have cuts with the budget ballooning to several trillion. In Washington reality this is known as Obama robbing from Peter to pay Paul. The carnival horses are colorful and pretty.

Everyone knows, or should know, that our Lady of the House will have the final say on things. For instance, Obama could plead, "the EVEN START program needs to go, it's not accomplishing anything" (imagine the juicy red meat for conservative tea partiers!) but Madam Pelosi could poop the party and say, "that's just not going to happen, but about those military cuts? They are just peachy".

Would Obama then risk political capital by vetoing the bill? Not for all the tea bags in China. No, he happily takes his military cuts and shifts the money into other social programs and thumps his chest about fiscal discipline while blaming Bush for everything else.

MORE 5/7/09

If this wasn't Obama it would be quite stunning:

And he told journalists directly that they should stress the fact that the cuts are "significant" – a surprisingly direct appeal to reporters concerning which angle they should take in their coverage.

"It is important, though, for all of you, as you're writing up these stories, to recognize that $17 billion taken out of our discretionary, non-defense budget, as well as portions of our defense budget, are significant," he said. "They mean something." (Here's the White House report on the cuts.)

Guess it's getting pretty bad when CBS News points this stuff out.

Scare Force One Update

The White House says the pictures aren't classified but won't be released. Since they originally said the mission was to update the PR photos (somebody said for the White House gift shop) the entire thing has seemingly become an even bigger waste of taxpayer funds than first imagined.

But take heart, at least somebody in the White House press corp is on it. They lightly hectored Robert Gibbs today:

Q A quick follow on something else. There was a report this morning suggesting that the White House doesn’t want to release the photos from the Air Force jet fly -- over Manhattan. Why wouldn’t you release those photos? And what's the status of the President's review of what went wrong here at the White House?

MR. GIBBS: We anticipate the review will be done this week. I've watched CNN -- I didn’t notice a lack of archival material from that flight. I can --

Q No, from inside the plane, from -- the photos they took, we haven't seen those.

MR. GIBBS: I don't know where those are.

Pretty good answer--for a ten year old. One might think the White House would have briefed Gibbs since it was an aide to Obama who said yesterday they wouldn't be released. Doesn't he have Obama's Blackberry number? The reporter continued with a follow up:

Q Robert, can you try and get us an answer as to why the White House doesn't want to release those Air Force One photos?

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q Is that definite, you're just not going to --

MR. GIBBS: Wait a minute, Mark said would I try, and I said, yes. So you're -- let me find Mark's answer before you follow up with the negative.

This has been one weird trip, however in all honesty it could be explained by Obama's willingness to admit every mistake short of his own.

MORE 5/6/09

A new day, a new way:

Q You took Mark's question yesterday on the status of the video flyover. What's the status?

MR. GIBBS: The President -- I'm sorry -- the report I believe will be concluded at some point this week. We'll release its findings and release a photo.

Interesting the first words out of his mouth were "the President" when asked about the status. But OK, now a photo. They've probably concluded that the anger has subsided enough. Also, as Debbie mentioned in comments it would be highly hypocritical to release more Abu Ghraib detainee torture shots and not the tortured citizens of New York running for their lives from Air Force One on a 30 degree bank at 1200 feet.

Chances are both the report and picture will be released simultaneous to something much more sensational or perhaps on Friday evening.

MORE 5/7/09

Gibbs was at his best today. Let's go to the transcript:

Q Robert, on the Air Force One Manhattan fly-by, I just wanted to clarify, are you guys going to be releasing the picture from that?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q And when will that be?

MR. GIBBS: Sometime this week.

Q Sometime this week, okay.

Q It's Thursday. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: You can't get anything by you guys, can you? (Laughter.)

Q At 6:31 p.m. on Friday?

Q Not necessarily today?

MR. GIBBS: Not necessarily today.

Q Okay.

Q Can you rule out today?

MR. GIBBS: I can -- hence not necessarily today.

Q So then it's tomorrow.

MR. GIBBS: Man, I'm telling you what, these guys -- (laughter) -- go slow writing this transcript. (Laughter.) There's a lot of knowledge.

"6:31 on Friday", gotta love that comment. And he certainly didn't deny it.

God and the Coming Demographics

As we all celebrate Cinco de Quatro by flying our Mexican flag on top of Old Glory it may be a good time to reflect on the meaning of life, as wrapped in modern demographics. Or at least give it a try. Mustang (who shamelessly ripped this off from Always on Watch) has the juicy fodder, a rather sinister-sounding journey into our inevitable Sharia future, unless it gets upended by the hordes of visiting Catholics who never leave (less some unknown margin of error).

Meanwhile, this past Sunday the New York Times ran a blog piece on God as only the Times can--by having Duke professor Stanley Fish review a new book on the subject by British critic Terry Eagleton. While my own intelligence as viewed from a biased, self-important mental cocoon will on some days seem a mile high, most days I'm reminded that to an ant, I'm a mile high. So I had to read and re-read a few times to get it.

And if I got it correctly it's pretty much an essay on how really smart people wrestle with the things that 'dumb' people seem to accept or reject without as much extended thought, such as the meaning of life as judged by the material versus the spiritual world.

At least Eagleton, who delights in describing the vacuousness of torture-loving suburbanites also has the sense to destroy the Utopian fantasy of "progress", taking up the classical "nothing new under the sun" approach (or paraphrasing Einstein, there are only new ways to kill each other). Technology progresses, man's nature not so much:

And, conversely, the fact that religion and theology cannot provide a technology for explaining how the material world works should not be held against them, either, for that is not what they do. When Christopher Hitchens declares that given the emergence of “the telescope and the microscope” religion “no longer offers an explanation of anything important,” Eagleton replies, “But Christianity was never meant to be an explanation of anything in the first place. It’s rather like saying that thanks to the electric toaster we can forget about Chekhov.”

Or in practical terms, an old country preacher might point to the beer commercial where the guys say "it just doesn't get any better than this" as a load of hooey--we certainly HOPE it gets better than this. Faith fills the gaps that science can't or won't, and people need that. Which brings me back to demographics.

The video seems to point out that while secular white western culture circles the drain the future will likely square off between Islam and Latino Catholicism, at least here in America. The patriarchal peoples grounded in faith survive (unless somebody creates an army of robots).

But as we know, Islam is more than just a religion, it's a way of life. Sharia law and finance essentially represent government itself, and when combined with the Mosque it makes up the whole of Islamic society. It's a society based not on the philosophy of Plato, Aquinas, St. Paul, Da Vinci or Einstein, but a man whose image cannot be depicted in cartoons without causing a riot. And it's a culture that demands complete submission and doesn't co-exist well in a polytheistic environment if there's a choice. If Europe is heading towards that future they are heading for another dark age even as their dwindling liberal masses whistle past the graveyard.

And if America is heading towards a chicken race between the Latino Catholics and 50 million Muslims by mid century there's simply no way these two converging trains won't end up in a general pileup at some point without considerable track maintenance along the way. The nature of that "maintenance" eludes me at the moment but hopefully it will rely on the continued teachings of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin and Monroe and those they took solace in. As Mustang said, most of us won't be around to see the outcome but our kids and grandkids certainly will. The least we can do now is speak out, for what it's worth.

Climate Fraud?

That's the hot topic over at Anthony Watt's place, discussing the charge of fraud leveled by UK mathematician Douglas Keenan against noted University of Albany climate scientist Professor Wei-Chyung Wang. Read more here.

To make a complex story as short as possible, the professor co-authored a paper years ago about the effect of cities on weather stations using a group of Chinese sites for reference. He claimed the sites were all stable--no big moves had occurred in their physical location over time--yet when pressed for the data by Mr. Keenan he refused. The university did its own investigation and stunningly found Mr. Wang innocent of any fraud but refused to give Mr. Keenan access to the data as is university policy. The university has been the beneficiary of about seven million in grants over the years thanks to the professor.

Mr. Keenan's charges are currently being reviewed by the New York Attorney General's office pending further action.

Why is this important? One, if true it would put at least a small crack in the veneer of invincibility touted by the likes of Al Gore (science is settled, flat earth etc) and two, it could possibly challenge the underlying premise that urbanization isn't at least partly responsible for some of the warming seen over the past 100 years. That's what professor Wang's paper was investigating.

Nevertheless, anti climate change zealots should proceed cautiously. Nothing has yet been proven and one potentially bogus paper doesn't equal wholesale refutation of the theory (although it would be a delicious snack). Additionally, the university's stalling doesn't automatically mean the data is bad. There could well be financial or political angles in play.

Keep in mind McIntyre and McKitrick's allegations about the broken "Hockey Stick" are still in dispute even if the IPCC removed from hockey stick iconography from its reports. But vigorous debate is supposed to be the nature of science regardless of what we are told about matters being pre-settled.

The most troubling aspect of the case centers around the alleged refusal to release underlying supporting data or methods, and of course the grant money angle. It's ironic that some scientists would resist full disclosure since only a few years ago NASA climate doyen James Hansen, lately an advocate for putting dirty fuels executives on trial and who called coal trains "death trains", accused Bush of trying to muzzle government scientists who were predicting a man-caused disaster.

Setting off Alarms

From the land of enchantment:

The proclamation that President George W. Bush issued on June 26, 2003, to mark the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture seemed innocuous, one of dozens of high-minded statements published and duly ignored each year.

The United States is “committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example,” Mr. Bush declared, vowing to prosecute torture and to prevent “other cruel and unusual punishment.”

But inside the Central Intelligence Agency, the statement set off alarms.

You can easily see where this article is going--how dare we accuse others of real torture when we just finished pouring water over the cellophaned faces of hardened jihadists whom we thought might know something about upcoming WMD attacks. It's practically the same as finger-chopping! Anyway, the more interesting thing here might be the timeline--June 26, 2003, apparently marking some kind of red letter day at Langley.

What was occurring around that date? Well, we were busy not finding WMDs in Iraq; the Times' Judy Miller had just returned from her embed with a special forces unit looking for stockpiles only to come up empty and embarrassed. That was embarrassment on top of embarrassment for the Gray Lady, having just weathered the Jayson Blair fiasco.

Meanwhile, Ms. Miller had met with Scooter Libby only three days prior, on June 23, to discuss the coming pushback of Joe Wilson's then secret allegations about the Africa claim being written up by Times journalist Nic Kristoff. The 'Bush lied, people died' meme was about to be born.

So perhaps it wasn't so much the speech that rankled Langley as much as the realization of a fast-moving political wind shift--one which they were seemingly helping to create.

Remember Denver

Right before last year's Democratic National Convention a Canadian man of Somali descent was found dead in a Denver hotel with a secret:

If Saleman Abdirahman Dirie intended to do harm with the sodium cyanide found in his Denver hotel room, he could have done a lot of it.

Firefighters said Wednesday that Dirie, whose body was found Monday, had a pound of the substance in Room 408 at the Burnsley All Suite Hotel in Capitol Hill, and an expert said that if it were mixed with acid, that would be plenty enough to function as a weapon.

We never heard much more about that story, such as who or what killed him. Initial reports said it wasn't the cyanide. Hmm, maybe it was a pirate. Anyway, it's not every day that cyanide makes the news but such was the case this past week with the confession of captured terrorist (and leftist cause celebre) Saleh al-Marri:

Al-Marri also surfed the Internet to research cyanide gas, using software to cover his tracks, according to the document filed Thursday in federal court in Peoria, Ill. He marked the locations of dams, waterways and tunnels in the United States in an almanac. The government claims this reflects intelligence that al-Qaida was planning to use cyanide gas to attack those sites.

Surely just a coincidence. Nice to know that due to Bush correctly treating him as the dangerous terrorist the government had to plea bargain him down to probably no more than 10 years (including time served) to prevent his outright release due to an interpretation of the meaning of enemy combatant.

Creeping Change

There's been a buzz today in the righty blogosphere about an alleged threat to some of the private bondholders who refused to get clipped in the Chrysler deal, a group Obama tarred hard in public. The threat comes from a lawyer representing the non-TARP bondholders, who said the White House threatened to use the White House Press Corp (as if they could) to ruin them if they didn't assimilate to hopenchange. The White House has denied it.

As several have said it's quite possible the allegation is more legal gamesmanship than anything else but it certainly seems to fall in line with the presumed philosophy of the administration so far, which says that contract law and free markets don't matter if they get in the way of fairness and social justice.

As to the bankruptcy itself, here's el-Rushbo with the clips and commentary:



There's yet another implied threat here, although to be fair it was said that Bush was not beneath punishing media outlets, too. Whatever the case, Garrett's questions need answers.

Drifting into the hypothetical, if one were to endeavor to 'change' the world and bring social justice a few things might need to occur first. The current conglomeration of wealth in the hands of mainly white Americans and Europeans would have to be broken up (the color of wealth being mentioned by Obama's former spiritual adviser). There are plenty of wealthy Asians and Arabs but they might not be so averse to a plan designed to tamp down the competition.

Such could not be done easily and overnight, though. The major impediments are of course free-market capitalism, the bedrock of western civilization, which would have to be demonized in order to get public support for 'restructuring' the world markets to protect against future inevitable dips in the business cycle. What better way than a sudden world financial catastrophe allowing a new populist administration to employ class warfare and greed to cleverly amplify the racist angle? Think AIG bonus recipient bus tours.

But the wall would still be high. The bulwarks known as the rule of law and free press would continue to block the way, requiring brute force to remove overnight. A more subtle method would be required. Actually that's not so true--the press wall isn't that high (certainly only a foot tall if the above allegation is true) and bias is already a known commodity. With major newspapers spiraling down the financial toilet a bailout could worsen the problem by leveraging newsrooms into reporting the party line the same way TARP has tied the hands of various banks. That leaves only discredited blogs and Fox News to shine any light.

As to the rule of law, Obama once told a radio audience several years ago that his view of the Constitution is that of a still flawed document because it doesn't adequately address social justice (wealth and power spreading), something perhaps made more clear yesterday when he outlined his prerequisites for a prospective Supreme Court justice.

All hypothetically speaking, of course.

Side Tracks

Some noted ladies of music when they were fairly new upon the scene..





But we don't have to always live in the past..



Not to say she'll eclipse the other two, or even come close. Just like the tune.

Face of the Phantom?

Was this the man running the insurgency in Iraq?



The Maliki government seems to think so. MNF is not as sure, as before. But Ayman al-Zawahiri appears convinced:

“Then, secondly I direct congratulations, support, and thanks to Islam's lions in Iraq, each one by one, and to the dear jihadi Islamic State of Iraq and its hero Amir Abu Omar al-Baghdadi al-Husseini al-Hashimi al-Qarshi, and to the lion of Islam Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, and their brave brothers.”

The obvious question becomes this--if Ayman is convinced what does it mean if al-Baghdadi was indeed connected to Saddam's Baath Party or the Republican Guard? The recent spike of violence does seem to be originating from goons attached to Izzat al-Duri and other former regime members. Oddly, as if holding power, they've already made overtures to Obama.

Matter of fact it was interesting to hear the president say during his recent press conference that although violence has recently ticked up it was still way down compared to 'last year'. Well, no. He probably meant 2007 back when he was advocating our withdrawal, as violence was down pretty much all of 2008. As Reverend Wright once said, Obama is a politician and has to say erroneous things.

It's possible the 'capture' of al-Baghdadi is a stunt by Maliki to refocus the public on why the Baath shouldn't be reconciled back into the government, allowing him to win favor amongst the Shiite electorate and continue in power.

But assuming he's real and actually was connected to the regime this no more proves a Saddam-AQ connection than previous reports of a Zawahiri trip to Baghdad or the EIJ members called to Baghdad before the invasion. In other words, if people wouldn't believe those they likely won't believe this.

Is the Investigation Finished Yet?

The Scare Force One scandal, that is. Last we heard they were in a circular finger-pointing contest. Really, how long does it take to clear up something like this if it was just a simple mistake? The FAA's email is already out there and Mr. Caldera, who 'authorized' the mission, has already apologized.

Yet seemingly easy to answer questions remain unanswered. Do we know for sure whether the fighters were Red Tails? If so, were they accompanying an AF1 lookalike for a reason, and would that reason have anything to do with George Lucas? Why are White House reporters not hounding press sec Gibbs every day on this? Heck, Obama even showed up at the briefing today (laughter).