Make the World Go Away

Good grief, what a Ryder Cup collapse.  Blame Bush--both of them.  They were there yesterday.  Obama would.    

Speaking of, from Twitter:

From David Ignatius:

The president hasn’t really made any bones about his wait-till-later approach. He put it frankly to Dmitry Medvedev, then president of Russia, back in March when he thought the microphone was off: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” This strategy of avoiding major foreign policy risks or decisions may help get Obama reelected.

But he is robbing the country of a debate it needs to have — and denying himself the public understanding and support he will need to be an effective foreign policy president in a second term, if the “rope-a-dope” campaign should prove successful.

And this is from Thomas Joscelyn:

Then on Monday, Trager says, Mohammed al Zawahiri (brother of al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri) tweeted that “people should go to the embassy and ‘defend the prophet.’” Mohammed al Zawahiri, who was present at the assault on the embassy in Cairo, also claims that he helped arrange the protest.

Here is an additional observation about the Zawahiri family’s ties to these events: Ayman al Zawahiri himself made a reference to Sheikh Rahman in his September 10 eulogy of top al Qaeda operative Abu Yahya al Libi, who was killed in June. Ayman al Zawahiri’s relationship with the Blind Sheikh is decades-old at this point, as the two worked closely together throughout their early terrorist careers. Ayman al Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) has long partnered with Rahman’s Gamaa Islamiya to execute attacks. In his video, according to a translation by the SITE Intelligence Group, Zawahiri says: 

And we, by the grace of Allah, have announced that we will not release the American captive Warren Weinstein, Allah willing, until the Crusaders release our captives including Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman and Aafia Siddiqui.

Warren Weinstein is the forgotten prisoner taken by AQ years ago; for those who don't remember Aafia Siddiqui is an American-schooled Pakistani scientist and wifey of Ammar al-Baluchi, a 9/11 operative and relative of both KSM and Ramzi Yousef currently housed at Gitmo (whose trial in ongoing but won't see much action until 2013 or later). Now can you see why Obama might blame the movie?

A Cold, Strange Case

1975 was a tumultuous year for America. Gerry Ford had become president due to Watergate.  The last US personnel exited Vietnam via the humiliating rooftop retreat in Saigon.  Saturday Night Live debuted. And there were terrorist bombings.

One of the most unusual bombings occurred on December 29, 1975 at LaGuardia Airport in New York. Around 6 pm a large bomb placed in a locker in the baggage claim area exploded, killing 11 and wounding over 70. The case has never been solved.  Nobody ever took formal credit.

Online research of this event doesn't provide much. New York terrorism investigators had a person of interest, a lone nut Croatian who had placed a bomb in a locker in Grand Central Station a year later while also hijacking a TWA flight between LaGuardia and Chicago.  Since the LGA bomb blast occurred at the Eastern/TWA baggage claim it's no wonder they suspected him.  He steadfastly denied it over the years, right up to his parole and deportation back to free Croatia in 2008.  But he seems a good target.  

One reason he seemed a good target is that investigators generally took the lack of formal claim to mean the bomber(s) didn't intend deaths, just a loud statement.  This might have fit a Croatian terrorist trying to gain freedom for his people.  At the time of the blast former Israeli premier Golda Meir was visiting New York so that angle was considered, but apparently dropped.  They ruled out the bomb being meant to target any one individual in the airport (it would have been nearly impossible without a remote controller anyway). Investigators immediately suspected FALN, The Jewish Defense League, and the PLO but surely those groups would have taken credit had they been responsible.

Yet there was one group operating in the mid 70s out of the New York area that didn't seem to get mentioned--the Weather Underground.  Their public statements--both then and now--downplay the death/injury objective of their bombs and play up the bang to make a point objective, which would also fit the no claim of credit.  Were they ever suspected?

According to this Wiki timeline the WUG took credit for 3 bombings in 1975 before the LaGuardia blast...

January 29 - Bombing of the State Department; WUO states this is in response to escalation in Vietnam. (AP. "State Department Rattled by Blast," The Daily Times-News, January 29, 1975, p. 1)[34]

January 23 - Offices of Dept. of Defense in Oakland are bombed. In a statement released to the press, Weather expressed solidarity with the Vietnamese still fighting against the Thieu regime in Vietnam. [35]

Spring - WUO publishes "Politics in Command," which is its new political-military strategy. It furthers the line of building a legal, above-ground organization and begins to minimize the armed struggle role.[34]

March – The WUO releases its first edition of a new magazine entitled Osawatomie.[36]

June 16 - Weathermen bomb a Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York, WUO states this is in solidarity with striking Puerto Rican cement workers.[34][36]

July - More than a thousand women attend the Socialist Feminist Conference at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH in which WUO supporters attempt to play a major role.[34]

July 11-13 – The Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC) holds its first national convention during which time they go through the formality of creating a new organization.[36]

September – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation; WUO states this is in retribution for Kennecott's alleged involvement in the Chilean coup two years prior.[36][37]

So they were active in the year leading up to the event.  For some reason the Times interview with the former bomb squad investigator didn't mention them, not even to say they were considered but ruled out. 

The "COINTELPRO" scandal (domestic warrantless wiretapping to follow revolutionary groups prevalent during the Vietnam war) occurred in 1971, which led to federal charges against WUG suspects being dropped.  We also know the FBI had a mole in the group at some point.  Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine had gone underground in the early 70s and were still there in 75, having just released their own communist manifesto dedicated to Mao and Satan called "Prairie Fire" a year earlier.

The WUG was not a group of yahoos.  They actually took credit for bombing the State Department at Foggy Bottom in late January 1975.  They had previously bombed the Pentagon.  No child's play.  They also bombed a DoD office and a bank later that year, then a corporation.

Then for some reason the group "slowly disbands" beginning in 1976 with many members turning themselves in over the next few years to take advantage of an amnesty program brought about by Jimmy Carter.  According to Ayers the group split about that same time, with a more radical faction carrying on after a merger with a black separatist group (later carried out the Brinks robbery in 1981).  So what triggered this sudden split in 1976?

Conventional wisdom says it was because the war in Vietnam had finally ended.  Yet our evacuation from Saigon occurred in April 1975 while the group still bombed Kennecott Corporation in September of that year, supposedly in retaliation for their involvement in a Chilean coup.  Ayers and others have said the end of the war caused the group to begin to split apart--the quintessential rebels without a cause--at least on the surface.  But as Prairie Fire illustrates their war wasn't just over the Vietnam conflict but against capitalism at large.  Ayers still admits this today.  Yet for some reason their bombing philosophy basically ended at some point towards the end of 1975 leading to a split. Why?    

This is not some whackadoodle post to suggest the FBI knew about bombings and did nothing, or God forbid were involved in the LaGuardia bombing--the mole was apparently only a go-between operating between central HQ and field units.  The government would have been derelict of duty had they NOT investigated a group whose mission statement was to overthrow the government.   There's reason to believe that communist Cuba was helping to fund the Weathermen, which is not to say Cuba was involved directly in any bombings, but it's not to say they weren't either.  Perhaps there was an international or domestic angle the government didn't want publicized at the time, ie an entity sending a silent message, who knows.  

Since this post is about the Weathermen it's also not designed to link Obama to any terrorism.  He was in Hawaii at the time, 14 years old or so--yes, evidently being mentored by a communist but there's no known link between Davis and Ayers.  And yes, he started his political career in Ayers' living room and the campaign deceived voters about their relationship, but that can also be explained by the radioactivity of Ayers outside of liberal academia (in bitter clinger America), which would amount to a political distancing without culpability.   Then again, the radioactivity would have been considerably higher.  

No, this post is merely from a guy sitting around in his underwear bringing to light a very strange chapter of terrorism history in America and asking a question--were the Weathermen ever considered suspects and if not, why not?

Side Tracks

Staying with country this week..

Revolving Towards the Truth

It's quite amazing to watch CNN downplay their own bombshell.   What bombshell, you say?  Why, catching the Secretary of State trying to bamboozle the public by dismissing a report she knew CNN knew about, then publicly slamming CNN for reporting it. 

But here they are today reporting on a new explanation from the Director of National Security's office about Benghazi that indicates the administration's story has 'evolved' towards a pre-planned terror attack: 

In an unusual statement on Friday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence sought to explain how it has revised its view of the September 11 attack on the diplomatic post that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others. The assessment moves away from the initial belief the attack began spontaneously following a protest over an anti-Muslim film. The intelligence community now believes it was "a deliberate and organized terrorist assault carried out by extremists" affiliated or sympathetic with al Qaeda.

Yet the article fails to mention is CNN's own involvement.  No mention of Anderson Cooper and the ambassador's notebook despite Cooper's 360 still headlining it.   It's as if CNN's news desk is treating Cooper's story like something on Fox.  

Other news outlets are downplaying this story--certainly no large font top column headlines or the main story on the hourly news blurb on radio. They could drive it to that level but evidently they think it chinks the prezdent's foreign policy resume too much.

By the way, speaking of the DNI's office, CNN is also carrying a story about Panetta claiming Syria has moved their chemical weapons. Actually it's a story about certain officials saying the UN has failed in Syria because the lack of action has encouraged more civilian slaughter, which could also work as another negative foreign policy story against Obama (they must figure Obama is like a lame duck because he can't do any state-level warmongering through November, although it's likely we'll see some serious droning soon).

Anyway, the same DNI once claimed that some of those chemical weapons Syria supposedly moved might have arrived there via Saddam.  Here's a recap, including a comment from Eli Lake about how people like Harry Reid should be hoping and praying Syria doesn't use their chem-weapons lest someone find out they came from Iraq.   It's not hard to imagine Bashar Assad actually using that as leverage over Obama to preclude our involvement, ie, "if you strike us with airplanes we'll make it known that some of our WMDs came from Iraq- the war you called dumb."  Maybe another reason why nothing can be done until after the election (add to that all the domestic policy expiring and it's going to be a busy Christmas season).

Odd how things revolve.

Dots?

Let's get this out of the way right up front- even if this dot-connection is true it doesn't necessarily portend anything sinister.  It would, however, represent another piece of information the public wasn't allowed to know before the last election.

An obscure story picked up by Instapundit yesterday detailed a 1979 syndicated op-ed  by Vernon Jarrett, once a father-in-law to Obama's primary advisor Valerie Jarrett, that could help connect a dot between Percy Sutton and Khalid al-Mansour.

From Insty:

Our President may have deep ties (personal and financial) not only to black nationalist extremists, but also wealthy Arabs who publicly floated the idea of financing, among other projects, the top-flight education of young black Americans who might (hopefully) one day share their hatred of America?

In a nutshell, if the article is true the established connection between al-Mansour and Saudi prince al-Walid bin-Talal might have extended a tentacle into American education through the funding of minority schools and students.  Since Vernon Jarrett was friendly with Obama's childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis ("Frank" from his book "Dreams") it's possible al-Mansour and others knew about Obama in the 80s before his Harvard days, all of which makes it more likely that Sutton was telling the truth on that video in 2008. 

If so the Obama folks threw the civil rights hero under the bus.  Sutton passed in 2009 and can tell no more tales, or truth.  Also, if bin-Talal funded some level of O's education it also, among other things, calls into question the student loans used on the campaign trail to plead poverty.  

But even if true and they actually saw the talent in O and funded his rise to the top, what would it mean?  Other than the obvious--two players being a Saudi and former Black Panther--perhaps they simply wanted to foster better education and upward mobility for minorities here in America.  Liberalism and altruism are not crimes.  Or perhaps the players involved mean something much deeper and a lot less innocent.   

That's the crux--we'll probably never know until the book comes out one day when it doesn't matter anymore.  We DO know that if Mitt Romney had any dots even remotely similar to those discussed above the media would be harping about them 24/7/41--especially if Fox News had a secret video featuring some of the players they were refusing to release--and even more so if Romney had airbrushed one of the mentors from an audio book back in 2007. One has to wonder if this double standard will ever disappear.

Calling Ambassador Rice

Hillary just spilled out what everyone already knows:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated for the first time on Wednesday that there was an explicit link between the Qaeda franchise in North Africa and the attack at the American diplomatic mission in Libya that killed four Americans, including the ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens.

Anyone sense a new drone war coming?

Ms Clinton apparently didn't mention Anderson Cooper, AQ hit lists, or Susan Rice. But this is quite interesting coming a day after Obama appeared on the View, er, at the UN to speak about the anti-Mohammed movie clip without really explaining a growing extremist threat.  Even the NY Times can glean that such an inconvenient truth might wrap around the axle of Obama's foreign policy, which consists almost entirely of "bin Laden is dead and AQ is almost defeated, and oh by the way, Libya is freed".

The bottom line really isn't the fact this was a terrorist attack--rational people never expected them to cease completely anyway--or whether the reaction on the Muslim street was only over a movie clip (a lot of the outraged mobs were outraged by the movie clip after listening to outraged clerics).  The bottom line is this-- would the current administration really mislead the American people about a terror attack on 9/11 for purely political reasons?   The answer appears to be 'yes'--while we await further confirmation.   

Those AQIM thugs will eventually be turned into particles of desert.  But that doesn't have to happen under any particular administration, nor does a reprisal attack need to occur before a certain date in November. The eleven year anniversary of 9/11 should have taught America one lesson--there are still far too many black flag flying radicals who want to indiscriminately kill us and too many nasty weapons still unaccounted for.

A View on the Speech

First of all, why was Obama giving a speech today in front of an international delegation at the UN?  Not any speech, but this speech. Why?  Because Muslims across the greater Middle East and South/Southeast Asia were brought to a rabid frenzy by Islamic clerics and other leaders to protest a movie snippet critical of Mohammed on 9/11.  Oh, and because we found out on 9/11 that some people still want to kill us indiscriminately despite UBL being fish food.

Since the president is known for having a strong foreign policy of blowing terrorists and surrounding bushes, trees and family members to heck; and since he has spoken many times since the events of 9/11 on how a man's free speech criticizing a religion was detestable while detesting violence over free speech, evidently he was at the UN two weeks later to explain things. 

With that in mind how did he do?  Did he support and explain free speech?  Yes.  Did he point out that violence is not appropriate in response to free speech, even if detestable?  Yep.   Did he make an insinuation that developing democracies are going to need to learn to respect the speech of those they detest?  Roger.  It could have been a great speech...given on 9/15 perhaps.

But it wasn't.  By waiting so late to make these points the president actually cheapened free speech and the notion that we were attacked because it wasn't one of the first things he thought to say.  His first instinct was to apologize for America in roundabout terms.   That has always been his first instinct.  But as president his job description is to defend the Constitution, not Mohammad.  Two weeks made him re-think a bit.

But perhaps some of the words were just words.  This seemed particularly powerful:

True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and that businesses can be opened without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear; and on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.

Yet in reality the same guy stood by while the filmmaker he consistently blamed for causing riots and death was basically perp-walked in public to a jail in California.  He blamed him again in front of the UN.  Anyone care to make a negative film about the Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) now?

Meanwhile time has passed.  The public is moving on.  The spin cycle is powerful and there are other things to talk about around the water cooler.  The FUBAR in Benghazi story, which prompted a government spokesman to tell a journalist to F off, and which might have won someone a Pulitzer during the Bush era, is being replaced now by the NFL replacement story (admittedly terrible).  This despite CNN doing their best imitation of Fox News and despite the administration's storyline going from a protest mob out of control reacting to a vile movie clip on You Tube that America had nothing to do with, a terrorist attack spurred on by the heat of the moment, to today calling it an "attack on America".  But you betcha he weighed in on the ref story without delay.

Chances are the real reason he was speaking today at the UN was the same reason he spoke in Philadelphia after the Reverend Wright debacle.  Is cynicism a crime yet?

CNN, Spanked

Let's see, suddenly stories are popping up all over about the US State Department strongly chastising CNN over reporting about a diary/notebook they found 4 days after the attack belonging to the late ambassador Stevens:

The news channel, in a story posted online Saturday, said that it found a journal belonging to Stevens four days after he died in a Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Three other Americans also were killed. CNN broke a pledge to the late ambassador's family that it wouldn't report on the diary, said State Department spokesman Philippe Reines, a senior adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. In a blistering statement, Reines called CNN's actions "indefensible."

Hmm. Blue on blue. Interesting.  What's going on?

Well, it's not so much of a stretch to wonder if State was more ticked off about CNN finding the notebook in the first place (where were State investigators/FBI) than what was reported, ie, Mr. Stevens' concern about rising extremism and being on an AQ hit list prior to the spontaneous attacks caused entirely by a movie trailer.  Or perhaps it has more to do with the Secretary previously dismissing the hit list story only to be trumped by CNN referring to the diary as evidence.

So we're either seeing petty retribution--CNN being punished by State for exposing mistruths or the administration engaging in a tactic to make the outrage over CNN the story instead of the actual facts reported from the notebook.  Nothing would be a surprise.  The only surprise would be the outrage extending into the CNN news hierarchy.

HILL-BUZZ    9/24/12 

An infamous writer at Buzzfeed takes on the State Department for trashing CNN:

"[I]t's unfortunate that you are trying to make a scapegoat out of CNN," he wrote. "That State was forced to flee Benghazi--again, because of such inadequate security, leaving behind all sorts of sensitive information--tells us more about DoS than CNN." In response to Hastings' line of questioning -- which was admittedly driven by his personal opinions on the issue -- Reines told Hastings to "F--k off" and "Have a good life," both quotes that BuzzFeed used in its headline for the post.

Keep in mind these quotes are from an email exchange that Buzzfeed published. But how does it reflect on our State Department to have one of their main spokesmen telling a reporter to F off for questioning motives? This should be a large font leading story on all sites right now. It would be if Romney's spokesman told someone to F off, simply during a campaign.

The Press and Romney's Fate

Look around the web this morning at the coverage of Romney (emphasis added to add emphasis). Here's ABC News:

And it’s a good thing because the last two weeks have brought more than a few of those “unexpected demands” — from a foreign policy crisis that spilled over onto the campaign trail to a hidden camera video that landed Romney in hot water to the release of his tax returns on Friday. Even the disclosure of his 2011 tax documents, has become the subject of blunt attacks by Democrats.

Of course not everyone thinks he botched the 9/11 statement, especially after 12 days of waffling and apologizing by the administration while the riots continue. And not everyone sees the 47 percent tape the same, especially since nobody knows what's in the 1-2 minute gap Jimmy Carter's grandson forgot to record. And the Democrats were going to blast his taxes and ignore his charitable giving no matter what. Here's NBC News:

Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan held events in Florida Saturday, trying to reverse what has been a seemingly difficult week for Mitt Romney’s campaign. NBC’s Ron Mott reports.

Listening to the big media one might think it's been a tough week for Romney ever since he was de facto nominated in the spring.  Yet for some reason Gallup has the race at 47/47.  Irony, anyone?

Here's the WaPo headline:

Romney team is both defiant and realistic

Need to read any further? Here's the Paper of Record:

With Rich Donors, a More Candid Romney Emerges

And that's how it works. The big media decides Romney has had a bad week, which sets up the strawman of him having a bad week, after which they proceed to discuss the strawman continuously as 'news', which only perpetuates the strawman.

What to do!  Well, it used to be said that a GOP politico had to have the skills of Ronald Reagan to end-run this press and get his message to the people, but again, despite Romney's 'bad weeks' he's still neck and neck in the polls.  Notice that Gallup poll showing Obama's lead evaporating from 50-44 on September 6 to tied now, yet the Romney bad-week narrative continues today.    Yes, the real story right now is how he's remarkably hanging in there--even gaining ground--despite Obama's bad weeks being papered over by the same media.  But of course, they wouldn't report that.  Oh, did you hear?  Romney has already lost the October debates.  Sounds like a bad month.  

WHICH IS IT?   9/23/12

Dueling headlines.   CNN, while lessening it's own blockbuster story pitting a less-than-truthful Hillary against Anderson Cooper, has the following headline about Romney:

Priebus on Romney: 'Not the best week'

Click on over to ABC News and you'll see this headline:

Reince Priebus: Last Week Was ‘Good’ For GOP

Of course both are essentially the same message--we've decided Romney sucked last week so how dare anyone disagree, both continuing to hammer the 'secret' video and release of his taxes as defining a 'bad week'.  Meanwhile, Romney caught up with Obama in the Gallup poll.  One wonders if they are even aware of their disease.

Path to Paradise

With the recent Muslim street brouhaha over a film clip it might be useful to look back to the salad days of Clinton and the 90s, when jihad was boiling up in America and the government was chasing down terrorists with FBI agents and CIA rendition squads.

In 1997 HBO made a short film about the first WTC attack.  Since they didn't have any visions of Democrat-future to guide them they took a fairly honest look at the situation, with the exception of airbrushing out Iraqi participant Abdul Yasin (it would be interesting to know why).  The film was rather prescient in its predictions--especially the last scene--but apparently didn't ruffle many Islamic feathers at the time.  The whole thing is on You Tube. 

Watching the film gives one a sense of the importance of the man who was bin Laden before the real bin Laden came along--Omar Abdel-Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh", currently serving life in prison in the US.  It also gives one the sense he may be a lot more important than Americans were led to believe then--and now.

So it's comforting to know the current administration has adamantly denied they are in negotiation to release him back to the new Brotherhood leadership in Egypt.  Then again it's not very comforting to consider that any exchange would likely consist of Egypt getting their jihadist leader back and America getting.....a promise that he won't bless anymore terrorist acts against us?  What else could they offer?

Side Tracks

People Died...

..Obama lied..

“I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration,” the president said. “When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. We assigned a inspector general to do a thorough report that was just issued, confirming that in fact Eric Holder did not know about this, that he took prompt action and the people who did initiate this were held accountable." 

In actuality, the Fast and Furious program was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency.”

Good job Jake Tapper, but it appears America has finally found some true journalists--on Univision.

Investigation Update

Anyone know how it's coming along?  You know, the investigation.  Last we heard, circa August 1st:

F.B.I. agents on a hunt for leakers have interviewed current and former high-level government officials from multiple agencies in recent weeks, casting a distinct chill over press coverage of national security issues as agencies decline routine interview requests and refuse to provide background briefings.

Apparently that's why we haven't gotten many leaks about the embassy riots and the Benghazi terror attack--everyone has conveniently dummied up.  Nice timing. 

Well, it took them at least three years to wrap up the Plame leak case.  So just wondering.   Think there will be a movie about this one? 

How Dare Romney Change the Subject!

This headline must be seen to be believed..  well, it's believable, it just needs to be seen..

Yes, how dare Romney change the subject, only the major media can do that!   When Jimmy Carter's grandson organizes a story through "Mother Jones" to change the subject away from chaos and a terrorist attack in the Muslim world it's called "breaking news" with saturation coverage.  But when someone on the right finds a long-lost clip of Obama calling himself a quasi-socialist it's Romney "trying to change the subject".  Hey, it's not authenticated yet.  Yo, neither is that 2 minute tape gap. 

These bastards appear to have no trace of shame left whatsoever.  They are so far in the tank they've reached Ed Harris in "The Abyss". 

Take a gander at the other headlines.  "How Mother Jones got the scoop";  "Does Romney dislike America?" with the convenient question mark (normally used by bloggers).  Hey, does Romney hate cats?   Does he hate small Greeks?   Is he a racist?    Then there's:  "Romney's new desperate attack", "Go easy on poor Romney" (poor Romney indeed, getting the same treatment as Bush), and "Romney's blow to conservatism".   The last one is rich considering he's the mushy moderate GOP candidate and not a Tea Party "fanatic".  There's just no pleasing some of these beltway blockheads.

But, but, but McCloud, you wingnut, look at the main headline--Fast and Furious.  That's about Obama!  Actually no, that's about a bunch of underlings fingered as culprits and a senior underling resigning.   In politics they call it sword-falling.  ABC radio news had the story on their 4pm update, not mentioning either Eric contempt of court Holder or president Obama.  Case closed,  move on, nothing more to see. 

By the way, ABC radio news also reported that Janet Napolitano became the latest administration figure to condemn the anti-Mohammad movie clip.  Wow.  That was the news flash...Napolitano condemns the movie clip.   Not, "despite adamantly assuring the American public that the Libya attack was just a mob protest that got out of control due to the movie clip an administration official now admits it was probably a terrorist attack, maybe even involving AQ, occurring on 9/11".   But only they can change the subject or the narrative.


Meanwhile "President Kardashian", fresh off the conveniently timed Letterman gig (where he answered the first question about our murdered ambassador), flits around on Scare Force One from lavish fundraiser to lavish fundraiser encouraging more redistribution, something the baby bird press won't directly address other than to attack Romney for mentioning it.  And the Rashid Khaldi going-away party tape remains safely ensconced in the LA Times vault.  Booyah. 

Meanwhile, an Indefinite Detention Ruling

While the country was focused on out-of-control Muslims killing four State Department officials and the administration was equally focused on blaming an obscure US filmmaker (to include a perp-walk) a circuit judge in the Southern District of New York also made some news.  She made a previously-ordered stay on Obama's indefinite detention authority in the NDAA defense bill "indefinite".   This was the expanded provision that Obama said he would never use, probably.

So where was all the coverage?

Well, "Russia Today" was on it:

On Wednesday, September 12, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest made permanent a temporary injunction she issued in May that bars the federal government from abiding by the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA. Judge Forrest ruled that a clause that gives the government the power to arrest US citizens suspected of maintaining alliances with terrorists and hold them without due process violated the Constitution and that the White House would be stripped of that ability immediately.

Actually the NY Times had it but it certainly wasn't a screaming headline:

The Obama administration fought the move, saying the law did not cover free-speech activities. It also claimed that the statute created no new detention authority that did not already exist in the original authorization to use military force. While Judge Forrest said she thought that it did expand detention authority, the fact that the government took the narrower view was “decisive” because it meant that “enjoining the statute will therefore not endanger the public.”

Brilliant turn of logic by the judge. The hilarious part of the Times coverage is that they couldn't bring themselves to just cover the judge's order bashing Obama in one story, they had to roll it into a story on the GOP House voting to extend the FISA law (warrantless surveillance).  Ah yes, those old glory days when Bush was Hitler.  Meanwhile the sad part of the overall story is the lack of an overall story. When Obama does it, it's not news. 

STAYED  9/18/12

The administration has already managed to acquire a stay on the stay through an appeals court judge.   I don't know if this expanded authority is needed or not, my observation is about the coverage in context with how Bush's programs were covered--Pulitzers were won.  In the Obama era the entire story has swept past the American public like a train passing at 3am. 

Fair is Fair

Hmm.  So Iran's government now has a new fatwa on Salman Rushdie while saying they will 'track down' the filmmaker that allowed otherwise peaceful Muslims a week of mass riots.  By the way, why don't they pronounce it "Sah man" Rushdie?  Sorry, southern digression there.

CNN has been broadswording this filmmaker for several days, accompanying their stories about him with apologias about Islamophobia and how American Muslims live in fear, etc. (all to prop up Obama's fading foreign policy chops of course); now there are death threats on the filmmaker.  So if something happens to him of the slightest nature can we shut down CNN for inciting violence?   In the least the Obama folks should check with the FCC to see if they can find something erroneous in their permit or something.  Sounds fair.    

Who, What, How

Today the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, made a Sunday show media blitz to deliver the official unofficial political non-political narrative--the Libya attack was spontaneous, no matter what Libya is saying. 

Trouble is, the Libyans have been saying a lot.  Politico reported today that their president, whom they identified as Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, said the attack was definitely planned months ago and included 'foreigners'.   But the Daily Beast has a story that quotes a spokesman for the Prime Minister:

Akari says that the Libyan authorities have found no evidence of direct participation in the consulate attack. “So far we really believe that this was a violent demonstration mainly against the movie that swung out of control. The protesters saw on television what was happening in Egypt and decided to have their own protest. We have no evidence at all that this was al Qaeda.”

In the Beast article they call El-Magariaf the president of the Ruling National Assembly, so presumably he's more akin to Boehner.  

So which version is true?   Well, both have incentive to pull a Baghdad Bob.  The Prime Minister doesn't want to tick off Obama, who made it possible for him to drive the fancy car and posses the title; the president of the assembly is more connected to the grassroots so he might not want to leave the impression local militias would kill a friendly ambassador and burn down his quarters while yelling Allahu Akbar due to some goofy movie trailer.  It's those nasty foreigners.

Still, even the PM wasn't willing to take all the blame, choosing to ask why the US ambassador was in Benghazi on 9/11 in the first place, which is actually a decent question.  It's not as if the US had no clue that Ayman al-Zawahiri had just spoken about the death of AQ's number two, a Libyan, a day before on 9/10, right?  Surely someone at Foggy Bottom monitors the web. 
 
So it's all pretty foggy right now but surely as the specter of American aid comes more clearly into focus the narratives will themselves come into better alignment. 


Meanwhile on a side note, ABC reported early in this event that one of the murdered ex-SEALS (working as a formerly dreaded security contractor) was investigating the proliferation of Gaddafi's former supply of MANPADs anti-aircraft missiles inside the country and had found several.  That story indicated the concern of many US officials that some of those weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists.  In today's Beast story they mention something perhaps seminal towards the end:

Meanwhile, Salafists in the eastern Libyan city warned on Friday that they would retaliate against foreigners if they come under attack from either the government or the U.S. On Friday, officials closed the airspace over Benghazi to prevent any civilian airliners from being downed when militants warned that they would fire if they spotted any American surveillance aircraft. Ali al-Shaikhi, spokesman for the Army chief of staff, confirmed that the decision to halt civilian aircraft flying into Benghazi was taken as a precaution.

Now technically they didn't say what the militants would use to down civilian aircraft---doesn't mean they have MANPADs--but it doesn't mean they don't.   If they do it would mean that Salafists, on the government payroll as militia leaders, and who might have been involved in the consulate attack or have ties to AQ, have realized those officials' greatest fear.

Uh...Uh...

This is an interesting clip from our nation's third greatest political orator.  The birthers are all atwitter...



Obviously a slip of some sort, either Freudian or otherwise.  It's funny that Obama himself seems to be the chief birther: first his literary bio states that he was born in Kenya and now he's out saying he was born to a "single mom".  Libs might concoct a conspiracy theory to explain (after calling people racist for even making fun of it)--Obama is so clever he's making these gaffes on purpose to fool stupid hick conservatives into foaming at the mouth and mentioning it so Dems can ridicule them.  Yeah, probably not.

More likely it's better described by Tom Maguire:

So yes, the Magic Mouth theory is always in play with this guy. Obama has grown up thinking he can BS his way past anything.

And he generally has.  One more show to go.   

Speaking of conspiracies, the only one that seems to have any real meat is the Social Security number thing. Yet it's something that no media flack would ever ask a sitting president, or one who's standing, bowing, or reclining for that matter.  So good luck with it.

One more thing.  As to the video above, it contains something else no media flack would ever ask: why did it take an Ivy League education for Michelle Obama to become qualified to be First Lady?   There are no prerequisites--other than marrying the big guy.  Just sayin.  

Side Tracks

Yeah, I've posted her Bond stuff before but she's simply so spectacuraly talented....



From 2002--she still had it down as well as she did in the 60s.

If Bush was Warned...

...so was Obama:

Concerned about the reaction to an anti-Muslim film that was gaining attention online, the U.S. intelligence community sent a cable to the embassy in Cairo, Egypt, warning of the concern, a U.S. official told CNN. The intelligence cable was sent 48 hours before the protests in Cairo and in Benghazi, Libya, the U.S. official said. The cable did not warn of any specific threat, the official said

Is this 20/20 hindsight?  Mostly.  Just as it was with Bush.  Similar to the Bush reaction, Jay Carney explained there was no 'actionable' intelligence provided, ie, they weren't told that radicals mobbing over an incendiary movie might get out of control, even if the mob included the brother of Ayman Zawahiri.  Even the attack on the Libyan consulate was out of the blue. 

Oddly, on the very same day of the attack--Tuesday 9/11--the NY Times published a hit piece on Bush suggesting that the Presidential Daily Brief (the same one Obama makes only half the time) of August 6, 2001 was enough warning for the Bush folks to have possibly prevented 9/11.  No full alert and such.  Ironically it was the NY Times who published the picture of Bill Ayers stomping on a flag on the actual 9/11. He said he didn't do enough, too.  

But OK, we have this vague warning despite the CIA initially saying there was no warning.  Were our embassies on full alert on the anniversary of the attack and after the warning?  We already know the answer as we await the Times expose explaining how it's totally different this time.

Meanwhile--perhaps the bigger story was the administration strongly pressuring You Tube owner Google to review the hoaky Islam film's presence on their site as per terms of use, ie, you might want to get rid of it, thanks.  Wow, such dictatorial strong-arming during the Bush administration usually got someone a Pulitzer!  To their credit Google said no, it stays, then restricted the video in Libya and Egypt and expressed condolences.  But the White House got what they wanted in keeping the story about the film and not AQ flags flying over our embassies or people yelling about 1 billion bin Ladens.

MORE  9/15/12 

The administration and their Chihuahuas in the media can continue to focus on Romney or some silly movie trailer on the web, but the genesis of the Cairo riots--on September 11--can more likely be found in stories like this issued on September 10 (via Jihad Watch):

According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: "The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released."

And if that was released publicly imagine what they had privately.  But hey, look over there--it's Princess Kate topless! And Romney wants to kill sick children. 

Nobody should be fooled.  Obama knows exactly what's going on here. He's hoping things calm down because continued disruption puts a kink in his foreign policy chops, which almost entirely center around his successful drone assassination program against al Qaeda and the removal of Gaddafi.  What else has he accomplished?   He knows this event threatens both, and he can't be weak on both foreign policy and the economy and still hope to win.

Then again he probably knows that few in the lapdog media will want to do any in-depth investigations about this warning and the so-called Blind Sheikh it mentions because they know any such thing would invariably entail the mention of convention savior Bill Clinton and his track record on terrorism.  Notice the Egyptian jihadies demanded ALL Muslim prisoners in America be released, including the likes of Ramzi Yousef, the first bomber of the WTC, and his uncle KSM, who planned jihad on 11 airplanes in the 90s before he planned 9/11 (oops, did it again).  Having their little flag burning party on 9/11 was not about a present-day movie, it was about the past. 

AQ Burns Down US Embassy; Romney Grilled

Let me see if I have this straight.  Obama's Cairo embassy staff fires off an apology yesterday about certain intolerant preachers in the US making bigoted films about Mohammad in an effort to tamp down rising tensions in the street.  The rising tensions eventually boil over the wall, tear down the flag and burn it.   This same film had been on the internet since early July but had somehow just come to light Tuesday only a week after Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Morsi met with Iran's Ahmajinejad for a chit-chat.

After some criticism the Embassy tweets a defiant statement later in the afternoon standing by their original condemnation of certain Americans.

While this is going on riots break out in Benghazi, the city in Libya Obama saved (will there be a statue of him there?) tragically resulting in the deaths of four, including our ambassador.  Romney puts out a statement last night condemning the embassy and the apparent dysfunction.  At some point the president begins the process of engaging, which acts to catapult the embassy under the bus resulting in a delete of their tweet.

Then this morning the president issues a long, rather benign statement condemning the event, threatening something, maybe an FBI investigation, applauds the Libyans for helping and mentions himself going to Walter Reed to visit wounded troops yesterday.

So now, with the Egyptian embassy neutered, the Libyan embassy in cinders and the entire narrative reset the story turns to Romney's early statement, driven in part by Obama's late statement.  Suddenly the Journolist press wants to ask Romney questions about a possible political boner rather than pestering the White House about whether AQ might have taken over an embassy in the country we saved (with an illegal military action) based on protecting that very same city, all on the anniversary of 9/11.

Is that about it?  

MORE  9/13/12

Our pathetic media is in full tilt deflection mode to make this story about a Romney gaffe and a justified reaction spurred by right wing fanatics in America.  Southern Poverty Law Center?  Yep, now being dragged into the picture to help identify the haters who made the hateful film that justifies the attack. 

Sorry AP, it doesn't matter what the film shows. NOTHING justifies mobs burning our embassies and desecrating the flag.  The story here is a bunch of barbarians who can't exist in civilized society because every little thing offends them to the point of violence.   The AP and all the other Obama-approved media know this, yet they will throw away their shame and spin the story to make their demigod look as brave and wise as possible. Puke. 

September 11

To all those lost.  To all the first responders..and second..and third.. and all who have sacrificed for the cause ever since.  America has eliminated a lot of bad guys in the last 11 years.   Those are the things I'll be remembering today.

SO....   9/11/12

..where are we 11 years later?  As mentioned, we've eliminated a lot of bad guys. We've basically freed two countries and helped free another one (Libya).  Arab democracy movements have broken out. 

We've also spent ourselves to the brink and arguably made the US itself less free than before.   Here are two opinions, one from Breitbart advocating that while UBL may be dead, all his goals have been fulfilled.  And another off HuffPo, which says we should declare defeat and stop fighting.  Both I think are products of the long war that Americans don't have the patience for, nor the fiscal restraint to pursue. Wars don't even just because we say they do.  A president can't end any wars by retreating.  The question that needs asking is whether we're willing to put up with the terror threat and move on.  

Election Center Update!

Here's the latest from CNN election headquarters...

Main story:  Obama is awesome. 

Election Center headlines...  third party spoiler (for Romney);  Fareed the Plagiarizer Zakaria is BACK and taking up right where he left off, slamming Republicans;  Obama's birth certificate; Congress sucks (usually GOP House); Frum bashing Republicans again; the crackers are finished; and Romney likes Obamacare.

All in a day's work. 

Messin' with Joe

It wasn't a big thing, but did you notice how different Biden looked at the convention for his speech?  Here's a comparison with a photo from earlier in the summer...

Yesterday he was out giving a speech and encouraged people to 'fact-check' him.  The AP had already done so--repeated here by Fox News.  The biggest misdirection seems to be the contention the Obama folks have created 4.5 million private sector jobs.  Of course, that depends on how it's worded.  The Biden folks can say they aren't fibbing because ole Joe sandwiched it with "after the worst job loss since the Great Depression", then said "in the past 29 months", which is correct.  But not every Democratic operative uses that context.  The goal is to make it seem Obama has already created more jobs than all eight years of Bush. 

But that's the flim-flam.  When someone parses only the 'new' jobs created during Dubya's terms they get roasted.   For instance, here's Media Matters scolding Hannity for saying he created 10 million "new" jobs, more or less accurate if you subtract all the jobs lost towards the end.  The left is now saying Bush's average new job creation was only 20,000 a month--yes, using the bookend numbers.  As Hackity said, when the millions of jobs were being created after the tax cuts and 9/11 it was hundreds of thousands per month.  But it's not OK to parse that way with W, only with the O.  

The bigger Biden distortion was probably saying that Romney "believes it's OK to raise taxes on middle classes by $2,000."  That's solely based on some expert's interpretation of Romney's plan, not the Romney plan itself.  And forget the fact that the great keynote speaker Bill Clinton engineered the largest tax increase in history back in the early 90s, meaning he definitely thought it was OK to raise taxes on the middle class, and that if nothing is done those huge increases will come back in January 2013.  But hey, we're not supposed to mess with Joe.

Side Tracks

This guy was underrated.

Making Clint's Point

One of the screaming messages from Eastwood's appearance at the RNC was that politicians serve as our employees. We hire them to represent us. We can summarily fire them. It's good to be able to fire people--remember when Romney said that?  Too many look to politicos as saviors or masters, to include many of Clint's fellow celebrities.

Case in point, Obama responding to the person who screamed they 'love(d)' him. "You'll love me even more" was his reply, followed by some political babble.   That's likely an instinctive reply--not shared by only Obama but nevertheless something the electorate should watch.  In other words, despite Obama not living up to even his own performance standards there are still people who support him for largely emotional reasons and will vote for him accordingly.  It's doubtful they would see it the same way if Obama was one of their employees in a failing small business. 

Meanwhile, our old friend Hollywood Bob Woodward is out with another well-timed tome featuring the latest insider DC gossip. It's hard to tell whether he's an ideologue or not--which is presumably a testament to his journalistic chops--but if he's correct about quotes like this:

"Obama doesn't really have the joy of the game. Clinton basically loved negotiating with a bunch of pols, about anything," Summers said. "Whereas, Obama, he really didn't like these guys."

...then it certainly validates not only Dinesh D'Souza's theory about Obama's ideology but also Clint's conversation with the empty chair.  Woodward quotes Summers as characterizing the president as bogged down by his own pragmatism, which seems a contradiction to the above, but if he's really in pursuit of the ideals occasionally blurted out in unscripted conversations with plumbers or off-prompter remarks about who builds things in America then that "pragmatism" could easily be a defensive wall around the goals he truly desires with passion.

Are we Still..

.."Out of money"? This is a burning question Obama will no doubt tap dance around tonight.

Truth Matters!

"The truth matters".  That was Michelle Obama's refrain on Tuesday night in her big speech and indeed it may become an oft-used phrase going down the stretch--but perhaps in a way she never intended.  

For example, these truth seekers have been playing fast and loose with it all week.  There was a union leader steelworker who spoke last night pretending to be a Bain employee; there was Michelle's contention that Barack and she were struggling after emerging from Ivy League schools then getting positions as lawyers/professors; there was Debbie Wasserman-Schultz' fuzzy math in determining that yes, 2/3rds of the delegates actually wanted the platform changed to insert God and Jerusalem;  and DWS's four pinocchio performance when interviewed by Shep Smith regarding whether she claimed the Israeli ambassador called the GOP's stance towards Israel dangerous.  As to Bill Clinton--mucho distortion.

Even Obama recently admitted to making a "syntax error" when bellowing "you didn't build that".  In other words, his awesome statement just wasn't worded awesomely enough.  What he can't admit is that the comment, even in some kind of spreading the wealth around contex, was politically tone deaf.

When these are added to the Clint Eastwood empty chair metaphor it appears the GOP is winning the phrase game this season.  Question is, will they get help from the media in spreading them around?  Kneejerk answer is no, but as amazing as it seems many outlets appear to be feeling the pressure and are being more fair this time around--so far--or in other words, practicing journalism.  The above examples are proof. 

College Transcripts Released

...of mass murderer James Holmes, that is.  Now we know more about his college background than we do about the smartest president ever.

Meanwhile, Breitbart has an interesting but not surprising fact-check of First Lady Obama's speech last night:

She spoke movingly about their early years--about how a young Barack Obama drove a car that was “rusted out" and found his furniture “in a dumpster,” how they both came from families that had to “scrape by.” Her fairy tale--however well-delivered--was one great, big, colorful lie.

Considering both went to high-end preparatory high schools followed by Ivy League universities and that Obama's step-father had a job with a US oil company while his grandmother was a bank vice-president, it's certainly a stretch to say they were struggling in the conventional sense. Breitbart will be blasted for pointing this out of course. 

Oh well, bring on Slick Willy.  Maybe he will explain how he raised taxes on everyone, not just the evil rich. 

Hands Up, Bin Laden?

The SEAL bin Laden book is out today, just as the DNC begins. Wire reports are mainly hitting on comments from DoD over the legality of the book and what they might eventually do--still not sure--along with some stern warnings to current troops.

Meanwhile the author's intentions remain murky.  It's still strange he would take the chance of publishing without review knowing what might happen.  As mentioned previously the entire brouhaha certainly keeps the "Obama killed Osama" story percolating so the Democrats themselves don't have to, just as their convention starts.  But sans a conspiracy maybe the author had other things in mind:

"The authority (during the raid) was to kill bin Laden," CIA Director Leon Panetta said Tuesday during an interview with PBS. "Obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered, and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him."

A number of experts have told CNN the question of actual legality may come down to bin Laden's response at the moment U.S. Navy SEALs burst into his room. "If a person has his hands in the air, you're not supposed to kill him," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The story goes on to quote a US official as saying UBL didn't have his hands up so therefore, clear kill.  I'm not an expert, but geez, if we are expecting people to surrender don't we have to first tell them to put their hands up? If the book is correct he hardly had time, ie,  "I surre.... BOOM BOOM".   His guns weren't loaded and he didn't have on body armor. 

None of which will break any hearts anywhere, including yours truly's. He was the top enemy combatant, not a US citizen, and didn't deserve any leeway--he could have just as easily been running out the door to explode himself in the hall, after all.    

Then again, it might well break hearts in a few places, if true.  The ACLU can't be happy and obviously we have the UN.   Going back to the initial story a UN expert weighed in...

Navi Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, told reporters she wants a "full disclosure" of the key facts.

One has to wonder if this amounts to enough disclosure to keep Obama out of the same hot seat as Bush and Blair.  Keep in mind the author of the book is not the shooter and also seems to have some issues with his former mates.  Is he trying to get one of them in trouble, lay down a political hit, or just cash in?   Perhaps the truth will be revealed in how hard he's eventually punished.

Suggestion

The folks at mybarackobama.com are giving away bumper stickers for the price of some personal info.  Here's a suggestion for an extra offering:   

Note to George

Despite what George Stephanolpoulis believes, most conservatives agree that the mainstream media has a leftward tilt.  Just opening one of their websites--such as Stephanopolis' own ABC News--almost ensures seeing an obviously slanted report every day, one that could have just as easily been crafted by Jay Carney in the White House press room.

Here's one from last evening.

The screen shot is important because of the context.  Notice the picture of Condi Rice atop a headline saying, "What the rich and powerful really think of the poor".  Why her picture on such a story? 

The left and media might say, "Why Condi? To get someone to click.  It's intriguing. It's just business. Quit being paranoid".  OK sure, clickability could explain part of it, but why not Bill Maher, Michelle Obama, or Nancy Pelosi--all of them 'rich' and all equally click-worthy?   Why pick a Republican icon who just gave a highly applauded speech at the RNC convention?  Do they even realize how it looks? 

They must--these people aren't idiots.  The story featured a list of rich snobs:  Condi Rice, Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Leona Helmsley, and Rush Limbaugh.

Can you predict where it goes?   ABC threw in one moderate-left leaning billionaire, Buffett, who of course was quoted as bashing the rich and favoring Obama's tax increases.  The rest were shown in the usual horrible light, including Rice.  And throwing a wretch like Helmsley in the group was a particularly nasty touch; sort of like being on a list with Hitler or Saddam.

So here's a clue for Mr. George.  The quote attributed to Rice, which allegedly occurred in a jewelry store where some clerk was giving her lip after she wanted to see more than costume jewelry, was used in this mindless idiotic story to show her disdain for the common folk, ie, snobby rich powerful neocon woman just as bad as Leona Helmsley!

Yet if Ms Rice was a liberal the very same anecdote would have been used to show the triumph of a strong and powerful black woman over institutional racism; a brave lady who rose to greatness out of the bowels of the old South and courageously faced down racism and feminism at the same time while putting the clerk (probably white) in her place.  


None of which matters to them--they delivered the message. 

But of course let's not just pick on George's network, here's an example on the NBC news website, from an article in their politics section on the Eastwood convention speech.  Here's the very first phrase of the piece:

It was a substance-free, 12-minute prime-time performance that remains unlikely to sway a single vote,

In other words, it's a foregone conclusion that Clint's speech was a pathetic failing joke, according to us, now here's the rest of our scribblings trying hard to show that Romney people agree with us, Hail Obama!  Ok, the last part was my personal opinion of their column.  But seriously, only in the world of MSM journolist-ism could a legendary actor's pronouncement that "we own this country" and "politicians work for us" and need to be "let go" if they fail be considered "substance free".  Behold the problem, George. 

Having a Hard Time Believing...

..that nobody from the administration knew about this UBL SEAL book before last week.  The Daily Mail has the scoop; 60 Minutes will be on it tonight; the Democratic National Convention begins Tuesday, the same day the book hits the shelves (moved up from an original availability on 9/11 to prevent the notion it was a political book).  Meanwhile it's clear the killing of bin Laden was one of the greatest Occomplishments but bragging about such things can be considered bad form--as evidenced by the group of ex-SEALS campaigning against it right now.

So just wondering here.  Having some mysterious SEAL pop up and give us a blow-by-blow reminder of the raid days before the national convention--exactly what is the downside of that for the Dems?   It gets the story circulating without having to circulate it.  They can remain detached or even express mock outrage, while answering new press questions about the raid.  At this point the only narrative detail the book seems to undermine is the claim that UBL could have been taken alive, something few care about.   If they had no foreknowledge it sounds like a wonderful political gift from the gods.

Clearly some government entities are rightfully outraged and may even succeed in shutting down the book or taking the profits but from a political perspective it sounds like the kind of thing Karl Rove might be accused of dreaming up for Bush.  Yeah, Occam's Razor suggests the guy is simply trying to cash in on his fame and that could be the end of it.  But it will be interesting to see how this story progresses in light of the SEAL PAC.

Side Tracks

Passed a convoy of utility trucks heading south yesterday.  Made me think of this song..

Nuts

Dana Milbank's Saturday column in the WaPo (who, you say? oh right, the guy who used to be a regular on Keith Olbermann's show) is about GOP nutcakes on display in Tampa this past week.  To explain, he begins with an incident where two white men allegedly threw peanuts and a racial slur at a black camerawoman from CNN.  It predictably goes downhill from there.

The nut throwing story didn't get major play from the MSM, probably because the names of the peanut tossers were not released thereby preventing the media from confirming they weren't actually Democratic plants or CNN employees.  But Milbank links to an AP story where the camerawoman is quoted very graciously trying to downplay the incident, saying it could have happened in Charlotte at the DNC and saying she hopes it all goes away.   But right at the end she's quoted as saying something that won't make it go away:

“I can’t change these people’s hearts and minds,” she said. “No, it doesn’t feel good. But I know who I am. I’m a proud black woman. A lot of black people are upset. This should be a wake-up call to black people. ... People were living in euphoria for a while. People think we’ve gone further than we have.”

Describing something as a "wakeup call" usually isn't consistent with wanting it to go away.  As to losing "euphoria", here's another story, this one from the old South--Savannah, Georgia--about a white man being beaten up by three black men for the crime of having a black girlfriend:

"I just hope justice prevails at the end of the day. This should not happen in this day and age. I know we're in the South, but it is time for a change," Bakre said.

Perhaps Dana can explain.  But he likely won't, since the WaPo won't likely be highlighting the story for obvious reasons.  Well, unless it can be proven that the three black men were Republicans, or white racists wearing blackface. 

Milbank then goes on to credit the Romney folks for condemning and ejecting these unknown nut throwers then proceeds to call Romney the head zookeeper for not banning Arizona Jan and Sheriff Joe from the convention for their hate crime of trying to stem illegal immigration (which the White House has now de facto legalized on a whim). And of course we'll see if Milbank calls out Obama for inviting a law student to speak at the DNC who believes there's a 'war on women' because some people don't believe she should have her sex subsidized by Milbank and the rest of us. Not holding breath.

2016

Recently saw the movie.   D'Souza does a fairly good job making his case that indeed, Obama is currently living the dream of his father, and it's not necessarily an American dream.   Some observations...

In scanning the audience (it was mostly full in a reasonably large theater) I might have been one of the youngest there.  And I'm not that young.   Just wild guessing but I'm sure that amongst the group a lot of people were probably familiar with the various storylines about Ayers, Wright and Davis.  If D'Souza's movie is to enlighten anyone it will have to draw a younger audience.  I felt almost uncomfortable even eating popcorn during the show as if it was disrespectful or something (I don't get movie popcorn that often so to heck with that perception) since nobody else was consuming that I could tell.

Something else that lept out was how good we have it in America compared to the Third World.  It's not a mystery, just something average Americans don't think about.  It's what drives some liberals--surely Stanley Anne Dunham being one of them--to do something about it.  And there's nothing wrong with wanting to help your fellow man.  There's nothing wrong with seeing abject poverty, hopelessness and brutality and wanting to stop it.  The question is how best to help. 

And therein lies the movie.  D'Souza, a product of Third World parents, sees America as the last best hope for the planet precisely due to our system of rights (coming from a Creator not men) while Obama--the product of one Third World parent--see America as the problem.   The dream, the change, is to rectify that problem by changing America, not the Third World.   D'Souza sees it exactly the opposite, and makes the case with several growing economies around the world who've embraced a more capitalistic style. 

What kept swirling through my brain while watching all of this was the idea that it took a feature-length movie to even posit the question, a question the media should have debated long ago.  It still looms.  The GOP just did a great job of clarifying their position on it, including Clint's strange conversation with the chair.  Now, will the Democrats own it?