Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Well Of Course They Knew

Is it really supposed to be shocking that Stratfor allegedly reported that the ISI allegedly knew of UBL's arrangement in Abbotabad?   Who doesn't think that elements in official Pakistan had set up the bearded one in a nice safe house (even importing his wives and kids)?  Yeah, a lot of 'allegeds' in the above but just from a commoner perspective the building of the complex alone should have been enough to spark rumors and inquiries in a garrison town.

Wildly assuming the emails are true, a slightly touchy question arises... if the ISI knew, when did they know?  Clearly if they set up binny they knew from the beginning, meaning they might have known UBL's whereabouts as early as when he left Tora Bora.  Or maybe before.     

But the bigger question is a lot touchier...when did the US or western nations first know?  Short of "they didn't know for sure until the raid" (gutsy call, standard line), any other answer could be a bit problematic--and not just for the present president.  Reports are now saying the USG has decided to go after Assange, for what it's worth.  Not that he doesn't deserve it--he does--but when he was leaking Bush-era secrets the intensity didn't seem to be there.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Why Bother Voting then..

Interesting.  In the past week we've seen the following in regards to the upcoming election..

"My presidency is not over," Obama told Univision's Eddie “Piolin” Sotelo. "I’ve got another five years coming up. We’re going to get this done."
Hillary Clinton:
"He will be re-elected president," Clinton said. "I think that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our president believes." Clinton responded to a question from the audience about the pro-Israel stance from most political candidates of both parties.
And Chris Christie:
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was very blunt in his assessment of the Republican presidential nominating contest: "Rick Santorum will not be the nominee." On CBS News' "Face the Nation,"
Everyone seems pretty sure, don't they?   Meanwhile here's what Indy 500 pole sitter Danica Patrick said when asked about the Catholic contraception question:
“I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans,” Patrick, a Roman Catholic, told The Daily Caller Tuesday when asked about the controversy.
Yeah, a shameless attempt to mention her today while pointing out that not everyone wants to take a stand, well, on politics at least.  Oh well, Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines....

19 Years Ago Today..

For all intents and purposes the war on terrorism (or whatever it's called) began on this day in 1993.  Of the rag-tag group who constructed and transported the massive bomb (laced with cyanide) to the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center, only one was said to be a real player.  His arrival occurred in late 1992 at JFK with entrance based on an Iraqi passport. As reported by Laurie Mylroie in "The War Against America", the passport signature page ironically had a familiar date...

Think what you will about Mylroie (and many conservatives don't buy what she's selling) but that date is certainly a weird coincidence.  Or was it?  A symbolic speech was given on September 11, 1990--the same day--announcing that Saddam's aggression towards Kuwait and beyond "would not stand" and contemplating a "new world order" where countries would live in peace free of terrorism, etc.  And irony of ironies, today is the day Kuwait celebrates its freedom from Iraq after we liberated them in the Gulf War that followed the speech.   We know terrorists love anniversaries.  The passport was Iraqi.    

Weird wild stuff.  By the way, Iraqi complicity is not the only nefarious explanation aside from mere chance but since a public investigation never occurred there weren't many in-depth stories in the press, leaving only weak conspiracy theories (feel free to send the tinfoil). Looking back, only two days after the attack the Branch Davidian Waco standoff began and lingered for 50 days, taking over most of the subsequent headlines. 

Anyway, after the bombing a law enforcement approach was taken; Yousef was later captured in Pakistan (our great ally) in 1995 and voluntarily gave up some information about his goals on the flight back to America.  It's anyone's guess as to whether he was ever aggressively interrogated by the government as to his knowledge of the entire AQ network or any state sponsors.  The presiding judge in his case wasn't even sure of his actual identity at the end of his trial.  In other words, the same kind of confusion, obfuscation and mystery still present in our understanding of terrorism now.  And it all began 19 years ago today.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Shakedown Comes to Memphis

Well, here's a gob-smacker..
Rev. Jesse Jackson said he will launch a campaign aimed at boosting minority jobs inside major companies in Memphis and the Mid-South. Jackson, a prominent civil rights activist from Chicago, revealed the campaign to civic leaders on Thursday during a meeting in Memphis City Hall.
Get that? He got face time with the mayor on this new plan to 'boost minority jobs.  How will he do it'?
The campaign centers on a new plan to spur diversity and look at hiring, spending and boardroom patterns of 50 public companies in Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee.

Rainbow will spend about $1,000 in total for shares of stock of companies based in Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee. Shareholders are usually provided with basic financial information about the company and entitled to attend annual shareholder meetings. Thirteen public companies are based in metropolitan Memphis.
Bold to highlight the pittance they will be 'investing' for access. Starting to get the picture now?  Jackson thinks if he becomes a stockholder he'll be privy to all the deep dark racist secrets, which he can then use to shakedown the companies to do whatever he tells them to do.

But how much access can he get for one share?  Someone holding one share cannot reasonably demand to see the inner-workings of a company.  But someone with the right organization and visibility could threaten board members with a rent-a-mob or an Occupy camp (filmed by the local TV) if their demands aren't met, while attending the stockholders meeting.  Since most companies are spineless this tactic may actually work.

OK agreed, nothing shocking here, it's Jesse Jackson.  Actually THIS is the most egregious part of the story:
Memphis leaders generally lauded the diversity effort for its potential to create jobs. About 40 percent of the households in metropolitan Memphis are considered poor or in poverty.
No wonder 40 percent are in poverty with that kind of clownish leadership.  It's tempting to say that only in Memphis would leaders think that harassing companies 'creates jobs'--at least net new jobs (maybe they mean someone else's existing job).  But when added to the national mosaic being painted by Democrats it makes perfect sense.  Just in the past few days we've been told that some people aren't paying their fair share for the privilege of being Americans.  So the Crackers gotta pay.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Will the NY Times..

....give us 30 days of front page coverage of the Afghan Koran-burning fubar?   As of this writing there were no stories jumping right off that front page.  Yet is it that much different than Abu Graihb?  Both were small contingents of clueless or thoughtless individuals doing something they should have known would look bad if discovered (and hurt our overall efforts).  And so far as anyone can tell neither were part of some kind of grand presidential policy.  Obama apologized--what else could he do?   Bush did likewise. 

Clearly, Abu Graihb irrevocably harmed our efforts in Iraq; this will make it hard to remain in Afghanistan.  Many folks there are liable to never trust another word we say--and not just the crazies.  And of course a bigger gift the Taliban could have never expected.  But the damage is potentially not just in Afghanistan, it's worldwide.  Indeed this thing could really get away from us, apologies or not, if we can't find a way to tamp it down.

Or would leaving make it go away?   There are ongoing negotiations, reportedly.

Granny Get Your Gun?

After several Democrats suggested that right wing 'hate radio' and other conservatives might have contributed to the shooting of Gabby Giffords, president Obama felt the need to give a healing national speech on our widening divisions. He was looking at you, TEA Party.

Since then we've seen very little activity from the "baggers" however we have seen all kinds of violence around Occupy Wall St demonstration camp outs.

And today there were two stories on Drudge of perhaps a seminal nature; one talking about threatening letters sent to members of Congress. These letters evidently came from a group calling itself "MIB" (Men in Black?) and contained the following warning:
Television comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert also received letters stating that similar powder-filled mailings would be sent to 100 senators and that 10 percent of them would contain "lethal pathogens," CBS News has reported.
Contacting Stewart and Colbert to announce threats? Sounds rather Occupy-ish. Amateurish yes, but so are lone-wolf jihadists. Then this, a letter to the USA Today:
Your piece accuses the protesters of sitting around and doing nothing. So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation's capitals. If our country doesn't change, it could very well come to that one day. Rich Latta; Austin
This guy gave his name so it's less threatening, but it's the thought that counts.  This on top of various reports suggesting the reincarnation of OWS could be something to behold.  No wonder Washington DC officials are taking a 'fortress mentality' towards our nation's capitol.  Janet Napolitano are you getting this?  Or is it gonna take another speech, for crying out loud? 

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Somebody Track Down Pelosi

Here's White House spokesgeek Jay Carney today:
"There are no magic solutions to rising oil prices," said White House press secretary Jay Carney.
Harkening back to 2008, here's George Halliburton Hitler Bush, on gas prices:
U.S. President George W. Bush said on Tuesday there was no "magic wand" to bring down record-high fuel prices...
So, what were the friends of Carney saying back then? Stuff like this:
Where have you been, Mr. President? The ... middle class squeeze is on, competition in our country is effected by the price of ... energy and of oil ... and all of a sudden you take a trip outside of Washington, see that the fact that the public is ... outraged about this, come home and make a speech. Let's see that matched in your budget, let's see that matched in your policy, let's see that matched in your separating yourself from your ... patron, Big Oil. Cut yourself off from that anvil that is holding ... your party down and this country down. Instead of coming to Washington and throwing your Republican colleagues under the wheels of the train, which they mightily deserve for being a rubber stamp for your obscene, corrupt policy of ripping off the American people.
Surely the media can track her down for a comment. It would be interesting to watch her blame Congress.  But c'mon Jay, everyone knows you don't need a magic wand...it's all about government policy.

Monday, February 20, 2012

It's About Time...

After being officially at war with terrorists since late 2001 it's nice to see a movie is finally coming out that portrays American troops as heroes...fighting terrorists.

"Act of Valor" is getting a lot of ink today.  Reviewers are touting it's authentic Navy SEAL cast and unconventional, non-Pentagon endorsed beginnings as it prepares to open on the 24th. Actress Roselyn Sanchez, who plays the CIA agent (yet another strange thing-- an apparently sympathetic spook) comments about working with the SEALS:
“What surprised me was how unaffected and cool they were," Sanchez told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column of the SEALs. "Here they were doing a Hollywood movie and it wasn’t a big deal, they went along for the ride, they did their thing and they were incredible. I didn’t see any diva behavior. It was new for me to work with guys that even if they were waiting around for eight hours and didn’t have a trailer, they were content. It was refreshing.”
Roselyn must have forgotten what normal men are like.  At any rate, the movie apparently shows our guys blowing up terrorists, even of the Islamic variety (albeit Chechen), which is something Hollywood was loathe to do during the Bushitler years. During World War II Hollywood was urged by FDR to make pro-war films and cut down on the grisly reality-based kind, which undoubtedly helped morale at home. But aside from "Blackhawk Down" in 2001--made during the Clinton years--it's hard to think of any Hollywood productions during the Bush years that made the US military look valiant fighting terrorists.

While it's tempting to apply politics, ie, a democrat is back in the White House so it's time to produce patriotic movies again, this one began filming in 2007.  Nevertheless it will act as a political tool insofar as showing the SEALS in action, reminding folks of how Obama got Osama (and a substitute for the postponed release of the UBL movie, originally scheduled to premier just after the Democratic convention), however some parties may object based on the bad guys, which could have been another reason Hollywood laid low (afraid of the fatwa). But politics aside, the movie sounds great. It sounds old-fashioned. Maybe it'll even have a happy ending.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

CBS is Lying About Romney

Yeah, hardly dog bites man, but pretty flagrant and crafty. For your perusal, an article about GM and Romney titled, "Is auto bailout Romney's Achilles heel in Mich.?" The writer goes on to say (emphasis added):
Still, some business and political leaders opposed it, like Mitt Romney, who was contemplating another presidential run at the time. Romney, a Detroit-born son of an auto company CEO who became a Michigan governor, penned a November 2008 Op-Ed in the New York Times declaring "You can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye" if the government bailout went through. "Its demise will be virtually guaranteed," Romney wrote. Glende said, "I'm glad the Obama Administration didn't listen to them, you know. I think there's a lot of job opportunities that would have been lost."
Notice the human drama of saved and created jobs, all attributable to president Obama, while Romney comes off as Old Man Potter. The writer even refers to the NY Times op-ed Romney wrote during the bailout as evidence (with the catchy title "Let Detroit go Bankrupt") as if he thought perhaps nobody had actually read it.  Henry Payne of the Detroit News read it and came up with the following (emphasis added again):
Exhibit A is the fiction that Mitt Romney "was willing to let (the American auto industry) just die" as President Obama repeatedly puts it in speeches - uncorrected by his MSM allies. Michigan is crucial to Obama's fall reelection and Romney is a formidable obstacle. Solidifying a narrative that the GOP challenger is anti-autos is crucial, not just to mobilizing blue collars but also swing white collars whose jobs were saved by government intervention. "Just like Mitt Romney, who wanted Detroit to go bankrupt, Newt Gingrich opposed the rescue loan that saved the U.S. auto industry and 1.4 million American jobs," Obama spokesman Clark Pettig told The Detroit News this weekend. Huh? Both Romney and Obama advocated bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler.
Wow, it really doesn't sound like Romney opposed the bailout, it sounds like he opposed the kind of bailout Obama was suggesting at the time (late 2008).  That's a distinction with a difference.  Payne calls it campaign season "misinformation", which is rather generous.  The final version turned out somewhat similar to the op-ed (with some major differences) as Romney has been saying.        

How could CBS do it?  Hmm, maybe some of these wascally Democrats, sorry, journalists figure that team Romney won't push back too hard because to do so would be the show strong support of...bailouts in general.  And we all know the TEA Party hates bailouts, even if they make sense.

For the record, this blogger is not a Romney supporter.  This blog was also in favor of a structured bailout of GM, not Chrysler, because they were a strategic asset similar to Penn Central in the 70s, which went bankrupt and was merged--by the feds--along with five other moribund railroads to form "Conrail" in order to protect necessary rail infrastructure in the industrial heartland from liquidation.  Ironically that was another fiasco brought about by oppressive government regulations combined with overly feathery union contracts.

But there ya go.  CBS lies about Romney because they evidently think they can get away with it, just like they are getting away with reporting about how great GM is doing without showing all the magic dust details so Obama can take credit. If Edsel had been largely devoid of taxes for a substantial period of time (something most bankrupt companies don't get--GM actually pays less than Buffett's secretary), had a CEO from a presidential jobs council order a line of their cars (in this case the Volt for their fleet), screwed their bondholders in all kinds of innovative new ways uncommon to standard bankruptcies, and had union workers (whose previous contracts contributed to the downfall) take a big under-the-radar pay cut while all the while still owing billions of bailout dollars to the taxpayers they too might still be making cars five years after their actual demise.

Meanwhile recent news reports herald the 7000 dollar bonus checks unionized members will be earning soon thanks to a record profit to be reported for the year--highest in company history, while for some reason salaried employees are to get whacked on bonuses because they didn't meet some unnamed 'targets' amidst an all-time record profit. Talk about Old Man Potter!  Also, their traditional pension plans are also being frozen in favor of a 401K contribution plan because...
GM said its pension plan was underfunded. The automaker said it would release more details on that Thursday. The automaker said that part of its incentive for switching the plan to a 401(k) is to transfer investor liability from the employer to the employee.

Ah yes, they deserve it, don't they, the evil white collar men of greed.   And Romney is one of them, the man who said that GM would die if the bailout went through, according to CBS.  But let's go back to the Romney op-ed and re-read the very first paragraph, for clarity, again bolding the seminal part:
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Notice he didn't exactly say what the CBS hack suggested.  It's great that GM workers are still working, we all feel for them and want them to succeed like everyone else, but the jury is still out on whether they can do so long-term, as Romney alluded.  But hey, everything is good news during a presidential campaign year.  So America, do not whine or complain, even if you favored a different type of bailout.  GM is an American success story, dammit.

MORE  2/19/12

The Times fires another shot, although it's a bit more balanced than others.   Let's get some facts in order here first.  The Romney op-ed appeared in the Times on November 18, 2008.  At that point Bush had not yet pulled the trigger on the first phase of the auto bailout but the TARP was in place.  Going to the video, er digital, this is from mid December 2008 and the Times itself:
The plan pumps $13.4 billion by mid-January into the companies from the fund that Congress authorized to rescue the financial industry. But the two companies have until March 31 to produce a plan for long-term profitability, including concessions from unions, creditors, suppliers and dealers. In February, another $4 billion will be available for G.M. if the rest of the $700 billion bailout package has been released. Even before the March 31 deadline, it might fall to the Obama administration to persuade Congress to release the second $350 billion of the Treasury Department’s huge financial system stabilization program — a request that the Bush administration is reluctant to make.
Of course when Obama came in he basically stopped the Bush plan and set up a task force, forcing the automakers into a managed bankruptcy with goals similar to both Romney's and the ones described above, sans the socialism, control, and political favor parts.  He also continued to shovel a lot of money to them during the process.  So the crux of this kerfuffle is whether Romney was against the Bush cash outlays in general (a standard bailout propping up the companies) or whether he would have allowed some cash to flow pursuant to managed bankruptcy. Let's go back to the op-ed:
But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost. The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk. In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
As we know, Washington DID NOT end up giving bondholders and shareholders a free pass--they lost their shirts in the new upside down process used in the bankruptcy. Romney also favored the feds providing "guarantees" for financing and said they should back warranties.  Sounds like some cash involved in such a thing.  Does that get him off the hook or just put him further into the weeds?

So one could say, and Mittens might try, that he was against the BUSH BAILOUTS that were occurring before the Inaugural, which didn't push the companies off the deep end as he had suggested.  In other words, if we just keep pumping in cash without changing the structure it was going to be a waste, which was absolutely correct!   Bush respected the office of the president and the voters and simply pushed the problem along by extending bailouts to the Inaugural so Obama could handle it.  It appears Romney was apparently against those bailouts but not the bankruptcy that actually occurred, which Obama is now using to claim he saved Detroit.  Go it?

Yet such is the problem with Romney--he often appears to be on both sides of an issue.  Not sure that kind of nuance will satisfy the TEA Party, and it darn sure won't stop the media and left from mischaracterizing it in an attempt to give Mittens an embarrassing loss in Michigan, his automobile father's home state.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Side Tracks

After checking this out I decided to shamelessly steal LA's theme and add a couple more...

Iii ahh eeee..

Friday, February 17, 2012

Abdulmuttalab Sentencing and Other Things

The Underwear Bomber was sentenced to life in prison yesterday.  This was proper.  Like others before him he took great pride in being called a terrorist in the name of Allah. He'll most likely add to our impressive total of Islamic thugs held at ADX Florence. 

But one man in attendance labeled him a patsy. 

Kurt Haskell is the guy who claims he saw a sharp-dressed English-speaking man helping al-Underoo at the Amsterdam airport gate prior to boarding their Northwest flight to Detroit. He has long claimed it was possibly an FBI sting, as he did in his 'victim impact statement' at the hearing:
Further, Mr. Chambers was quoted in the Free Press on January 11, 2011 when he indicated that the government's own explosives experts had indicated that Umar's bomb was impossibly defective. I wondered how that could be. Certainly, I thought, Al Qaeda wouldn't go through all of the trouble to plan such an attack only to provide the terrorist with an impossibly defective bomb.
Call him a conspiracy nut, but his theory is not so far from looneyville.  For instance, the bomber called Haskell as a witness--his only one--then five days later suddenly folded and pled guilty.  Meanwhile just today news media are reporting on yet another FBI sting capture, this time a set-up Muslim heading for the Capitol carrying inert FBI explosives.   How many is that now?   The federal explosive ploy actually goes back a long way--all the way to the gang trying to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993.  That sting went down the drain when their Egyptian plant bugged out right before a guy arrived with an Iraqi passport stamped September 11, 1990 and formulated a bomb that almost knocked down the towers.

The seminal question is this--was Abdulmuttalab carrying an inert bomb or did he simply mess up?  And if his bomb was phony, why, and who planted it?

What never made much sense about the FBI plant theory is the administration's reaction to the event. One might think they would have jumped on it like Charlie Sheen on a Kardashian, but they bungled it horribly.  They also allowed it to occur on Christmas Day   Or maybe they tried--Janet Reno did say that the "system worked".  Then again, that comment came off more like butt-covering (and certainly produced some blowback). 

Would the FBI do such a thing and not tell the administration?  Well, embarrassing the boss isn't a move to ensure job security.  Director Mueller was given a 2 year extension on his 10 year gig last year--which hardly sounds like punishment.  Would CIA have run it without telling anyone else?  Possible, but coming off the 9/11 Commission results it sounds remote. 

What about AQ? Maybe they wanted it to be a dud. Maybe the sharp-dressed man was a Muslim extremist sympathizer. After all, Abdulmuttalab didn't seem to have an issue with the guy, almost as if meeting him was planned in advance. But why would AQ want it to be a dud, you ask?  Well, had the explosive detonated onboard approaching Detroit a terrorist explanation would not have been instantly evident.  Might the Feds, in a noble effort to allay panic, have stonewalled with all kinds of alternate scenarios, maybe coming up with some theory about a spark in the center wing tank or an oxygen bottle exploding? 

Keep in mind that AQ in the Arabian Peninsula took credit for the downing of UPS Flight 6 in Dubai and their claim went nowhere. Terrorists claim crashes all the time.  By having this goofball attempt to light a dud underwear bomb it became a huge story with much publicity for AQ, not to mention more angst for TSA and security in general.  In other words, there's some upside for the "AQ planted a dud" theory.

But back to Haskell's theory of FBI fore-knowledge.  The question is whether his scenario represents something sinister, such as the government trying to manufacture phony stories about terrorism to propagate the coming police state or whether it actually led them to the eventual termination of 9/11 accomplice Anwar Awlaqi.   Or did the thing just come off entirely as reported?  The answer remains lurking up there above the local pay grade.

What Exactly is the Obama Doctrine?

What is the difference between our NATO-led operation in Kosovo and our NATO-led operation in Libya?  The former featured areal bombardment that got rid of a dictator, followed by peacekeeping forces (including a United States contingent).  The latter features...well...

Armed militias in Libya are committing human rights abuses with impunity, threatening to destabilize the country and hindering its efforts to rebuild, Amnesty International said Thursday. Militias have tortured detainees, targeted migrants and displaced entire communities in revenge attacks, according to a report the organization released a year after the start of popular uprisings that eventually ended Moammar Gadhafi's 42-year rule. "Hundreds of armed militias, widely hailed in Libya as heroes for their role in toppling the former regime, are largely out of control," the report says.
Of course there was a time when such a thing would be called a 'civil war' and much gnashing of teeth in the New York Times, but since we never put boots on the ground in Libya it's apparently not our problem, even though it was in Kosovo.  What is the Obama Doctrine, exactly?

Right now it appears to leave the US Military as a band of mercenaries, used whenever a tyrant is about to kill some innocents (unless said tyrant has the capability of causing US casualties). Whatever happens after we remove said dictator becomes none of our bidness, even if said country falls into the hands of a bigger enemy, and maybe not then.  Or are we at some point going to use the NATO model for Kosovo in Libya? Can someone explain it?

Thursday, February 16, 2012

What Really Matters

Lotsa words written about the contraceptives vs the Catholics issue, so won't belabor it. In a nutshell: one, contraceptives should not be 'free' coming from a government mandate.  They are widely available and accessible.  They are not preventative of disease, they are preventative of pregnancy.  They enhance recreational sex.  What's so hard to understand there?  OK yes, there are times when contraceptives become a life-saving formula, which should of course be covered.  But the Catholic Church (or anyone else) should not be forced to cover something non-disease preventative because a president says so.  What the hell happened to the Dems' fear of imperial presidencies?

Two, yes, the Dems coordinate their message.  Whether Media Matters, MoveOn, Center for Progress, Van Jones, White House flaks, mainstreamers; they all coordinate.  The Journolist proved it.  That fact was obvious today just by listening to the radio and reading blogs and message boards, then watching so-called press conferences like this one.  Suddenly a bunch of liberals were all using an analogy with Christian Scientists and blood transfusions, followed by suggestions that conservatives hate women.

It's all a distraction of course.  The real issue continues to be jobs, jobs, jobs..

..as it has for 3 years.   And the security situation around the world.  But the Obama-approved media would rather cover stories about sex and stodgy stereotyped conservatives than actually have sex themselves, so it's hardly a fair playing field, and it only gets worse.   Maybe if the GOP could figure out a way to get lingerie or flashy thighs into these issues somehow... wait. 

Monday, February 13, 2012

Dog Bites Man

This is supposed to be a revelation
Sure they coordinate. The Journolist is old news. Legal Insurrection points to an epiphany about that strange contraception question posed by George Steph in the last ABC debate, which seemed to come out of left field. In reality it probably DID come out of left field, or better said, liberal field. But so what? Everyone knows the left wing is in bed with the mainstreamers.  The playing field is set. The battle rages on.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Teapot in a Tempest?

The "bin Laden had given up on jihad" story flagged by Instapundit (via a piece by the American Interest) is certainly interesting, but is it supposed to be convincing?  Are we to unflinchingly believe a comment made by the sister of one of UBL's still incarcerated wives?   One comment can hardly negate the 'treasure trove' of intelligence that Obama himself grabbed out of bin Laden's lair after rappelling down a 40 foot rope in pitch darkness while barking orders to the SEALS (or whatever the final story was).  

But OK then, if UBL had actually given up on jihad years ago (becoming a paper tiger for all practical purposes) that leaves Ayman Zawahiri as the real face of AQ, a man who is still at large despite the administration's promises that AQ's lieutenants have been "largely defeated".   The funny thing is the administration may feel compelled to beat down the bin Laden story for political purposes but in doing so they may elevate Zawahiri and his threat, which they've already diminished for political purposes.  There has to be some reason for the drones, partially secret prisons, lack of habeas, extra-judicial killings, GITMO and the like.

Then again, one could also look at binny's comment as he considered the war over and won by AQ, telling his progeny to attend the fine schools so they can come back and rule the newly-formed Muslim Spring countries springing up all over Arabia (the end-goal of the jihad thing all along). 

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Side Tracks

That takes a little talent, folks.   For those wanting the electric version here's one, featuring Adams playing the bass.  

And why...

...has this story never become important?
The Aug. 11, 1982, explosion was no accident. Ozawa was murdered — killed by a sophisticated bomb, one of many that spread like a virus around the world in the 1980s, killing and injuring scores in more than two dozen terrorist attacks. The man behind them: Abu Ibrahim, who controlled a web of dangerous operatives while living in Baghdad under the protection of Saddam Hussein.
Emphasis added.  His given name is Husayn al-Umari. He's about 75 years old now but still one of the most-wanted men on the Rewards for Justice list, according to ex-CIA agent Bob Baer:
"He was the most capable and the most dangerous bomb maker in the world barring none during my time as a CIA officer. He's a man who could open up a lot of old cases."
So why was this guy not trotted out by the administration as a link between Iraq and terrorism?   Well, the story goes on to say he was operating under the blessing of Saddam during the 80s when the State Dept pressured them to abandon terrorism (because we had removed them from the State Sponsored list and needed their help to fend off the Ayatollah).  Iraq responded that the 15 May Organization was defunct but most counter-terror agents in the FBI and CIA didn't buy it, emphasizing his role as teacher...
"He still made the bombs and he still taught people how to do it," Kline said. "He had a little shop in Baghdad. He had this cadre of couriers who went out and placed them like Rashed. He was a dedicated terrorist." Kline said the FBI was able to connect at least 21 devices to Ibrahim. Others continued to circulate in the hands of terrorists; they would be traced to two airline bombings in 1986 and 1989 that killed 174 people, including the wife of an American ambassador to Chad.
Here's a guy who was directly connected to the Iraqi Intelligence Service (he lived only a few blocks away) engineering terrorist attacks on US assets and citizens, a man described by many intelligence officers as "Dr. Frankenstein" yet he never became a household name like Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, or Ramzi Yousef.  Yet when the coalition went into Iraq in 2003 his name wasn't included on the "Deck of Cards" of most-wanted regime thugs.
So where is Ibrahim today? Federal law enforcement and former CIA officials believe that Ibrahim has fled to Syria. His sons, daughter and longtime wife Selma could also be with him. While the FBI declined to discuss specific efforts to find Ibrahim, the official did say the window to bring him to justice is closing. Rashed, whom prosecutors called a "cold-blooded killer" in a court filing, is scheduled to be released from prison in 2013 — which would leave any case against Ibrahim without its star witness.
Emphasis again to point out that he was last thought to be in Syria, a hotbed connected to Iran featuring a regime that just released the 'Red-Headed Terrorist", another purported mastermind who allegedly engineered the Madrid and London bombings (while remaining almost anonymous to the public) and someone who reportedly got training in Saddam's Iraq while also serving as a trainer for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets.  Meanwhile 15 May operator Mohammed Rashed is still locked up at the Supermax along with a more infamous bomber who used 'seat bombs' to attack large aircraft, Ramzi Yousef.  One has to wonder what they talk about, if they can talk.  One also has to wonder what the Feds know about any connections between the two that might link to Iraq. 

But back to the question of 'why'.  Maybe the answer stems from something mentioned in the linked story.  Perhaps that something explains why an outfit like MSNBC or Newsweek or Time or AP would even report such a story in the first place--a possibility that the Reagan/Bush White Houses didn't want him captured back when he was acting on behalf of Iraq as state terrorist agent against Iran. 

And if true, perhaps he got the last laugh by teaching other terrorists how to use bombs against western targets.  One may also ask why the left wouldn't want to exploit such a story, hoping to show the hypocrisy of messers Bush and Cheney, but the answer could be that doing so would also prove what they said never occurred--Iraq's complicity in global terror.  They've set up Iraq as the political gift that keeps on giving and they probably figure it gives a lot more than actually admitting that while Bush was a flying hypocrite about Saddam he was technically correct.  It might also explain the vigor with which they demonized Saddam in the 90s.

In the end perhaps the Bush folks thought it best to leave al-Umari under the realpolitik rug even if his existence made the case of Saddam Hussein working with terrorists or perhaps even proving a thin link between Iraq, al-Umari, and al Qaeda.  Maybe somebody knows the names of his students over the past 20 years.  Maybe that somebody is locked up in Colorado right now.   Maybe we'll never know.

Friday, February 10, 2012


....should contraception be free?   Doesn't that basic question trump all the hullabaloo about Catholics being forced to provide it in their domain?  Nothing is free, somebody will pay.  And somebody will be fined if they don't.  That's not a freedom thing.  And if it's just a fairness for woman thing why will men still have to pay to get contraceptives in truck stop bathrooms? 

These madmen must be stopped.

Monday, February 06, 2012

Red-Headed Terrorist Released?

This, folks, is the reason TSA doesn't profile.  The 'red-headed terrorist' was thought to be the operational planner involved in the London Tube attacks and Madrid train bombing.

Now Syria has released him..
The alleged terrorist mastermind behind the July 7 London bombings is reported to have been freed from a Syrian jail by President Bashar Assad's regime.
Allegedly Assad did this as a warning to the west not to mess with him. But why would that be a warning? Wouldn't a release actually give the Obama regime an opportunity to turn him into pieces of desert or perhaps lead them to other big shots? Or maybe this, from a 2006 WaPo article, is the reason the released him:
In an e-mail to bin Laden in 1999, recovered from a computer hard drive in Kabul by the Wall Street Journal, Nasar complained that bin Laden was getting a big head from his frequent media appearances. "I think our brother has caught the disease of screens, flashes, fans, and applause," Nasar wrote.
In public statements and in interviews with Arab media, Nasar said he was happy to work with al-Qaeda but emphasized that he was an independent operator. His theories of decentralization had already taken shape: It would be a mistake, he said, for the global movement to pin its hopes on a single group or set of leaders. "My guess is that he saw bin Laden as a narrow-minded thinker," said Jarret Brachman, research director for the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. "He clearly says that al-Qaeda was an important step but it's not the end step and it's not sufficient."
Nasar's theories of war also called for the most deadly weapons possible. In Afghanistan, he worked with al-Qaeda leaders to train fighters in the use of "poisons and chemicals" at two camps near Jalalabad and Kabul, according to the State Department. After the Sept. 11 hijackings, Nasar praised the attacks. But he said a better plan would have been to load the hijacked airplanes with weapons of mass destruction.
This guy appears more a strategic thinker than jihadist, and his thinking doesn't sound too good.  Contrary to mainstream media whitewashing, he does have a background that involves Saddam Hussein's Iraq, somewhat interesting considering his comment about not identifying himself as AQ (this explains it better, along with a caveat not to connect him to Saddam and then to AQ.  Of course Bush's rationale was that Iraq wasn't beyond working with any number of terrorists).

So, while it's unclear whether Nasar qualifies as a lieutenant if indeed he's on the loose he's in no way "defeated".  Syria may have done this, or is bluffing, to tweak Obama into backing off.  But releasing him at all should be seen as a hostile act.

Saturday, February 04, 2012

Side Tracks

By the way, no copyright violation intended with any of these song postings.  Go after You Tube, they make money, not me.  

And oh yeah, Super Bowl prediction--  clear, game time temperature around 40, wind north-northeast 6 mph.  Lots of people, with hot dog vendors looking crosswise at them.  A Madonna sighting and a dirigible of some kind.  Enjoy...

A New Hockey Stick

This graph from Zerohedge made some news yesterday after the 'better than expected' jobs report..

Why, it's beginning to look like a hockey stick.  Sort of like this one..

Since Mann's hockey stick gave rise to a UN panel to mitigate a coming man-made danger, which resulted in a plan to regulate the world's economy by limiting carbon emissions, shouldn't the government's new hockey stick give rise to some kind of plan to mitigate the growing dependency crisis?   After all, that chart is rising at about the same level as CO2.  It's unsustainable. 

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Hope and Charity...or Else

Is he setting himself up as some kind of mortal Jesus?

This trend of using scripture to justify the government capturing wealth and spreading it around or passing health care mandates is getting a little peculiar.  Obama is basically saying it's what Jesus would do.  But would any religious deity do such a thing?  Most religions are focused on the individual, not the state.  After all, the state is not going to die (conventionally at least).  He might argue that since he's the head of a state he has a responsibility to practice his Christianity by having the state follow Biblical teachings of charity by increasing taxes and passing mandates and such, his administration acting as the arbiters of sweetness and light.

Decide for yourself whether it's a misapplication of scripture or not, but as a constitutional scholar he should know the United States wasn't founded on a principle of being our brothers' keepers or redistributing wealth or being charitable to the poor.  Quite the opposite.   If he wants to use the bully pulpit to spread a message of Christian goodwill that's great, but it's generally none of the government's business.  He might find some pushback based on that little separation of church and state thing.  Theoretically at least.