Classified Relativism

The NY Times has an interesting feature today on former diplomat Robin Raphel, charged last year with delivering classified information to Pakistan.  Why interesting?  Because, as the story notes, the case against Raphel has "fizzled".  Hmm, as the bloggers say.

The Times goes on to mention numerous figures on the right and left who've been involved in mishandling classified information--yes, even Hillary.  For some reason they forgot to mention "Obama's favorite general" Hoss Cartwright, a person of interest in leaking Stuxnet intelligence on Iran to the media.  At last check that had fizzled due to complexities with the Iran nuke deal or something. 

That aside, it's been well-reported that the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers than all other administrations combined, mostly lower level folks.  The Times article notes that current FBI Director James Comey was a little upset with the Justice Department's deal with General Petraueus as they feared it might set precedence for future cases--indeed that's exactly what Raphel's defense team seems to be doing.  But who cares about Raphel, right?  How does this relate to anything else?     

The cynic might say this points in one direction--the Clinton server in Chappaqua.  The cynic might also say the left needs a way to dumb-down the severity of mishandling classified information with their leading 2016 hopeful in the situation she's in.  So, have the media point to the relativism of past prosecutions and make everything muddy with hopes the peeps can get past such peccadillos worthy of putting lesser luminaries in Leavenworth.  Is that what's going on here?   

By the way, in a previous mention here of Ms Raphel there was a link to this 1996 LA Times story.  It's truly one of those "must-reads" from the past that shines light on how messed up things got later.  A snip, emphasis added:

And a Taliban official, Shirmohammed Stanekzai, gave public assurances this week that under the Islamic militia's rule, this country will no longer serve as a training ground or haven for foreign extremists. "As the Islamic movement of Taliban, we don't want to interfere in others' affairs," Stanekzai said. "We don't want to send people to create problems in other countries."

If foreign terrorists fall into the Taliban's hands, he said, "we will punish them hard."

Such words--uttered at a news conference for the foreign media, which have flocked to Kabul since the Taliban captured this capital last Friday--will be sweet music for officials in Washington. Combating terrorism and the global trade in narcotics are leading items on the U.S. foreign policy agenda.

The current conspiracy theories are understandable, even plausible, given the great mystery that still shrouds the Taliban's rise and rapid advance. How did a ragtag force that emerged in late 1994 among Muslim religious students in the southern region of Kandahar and adjacent areas of Pakistan grow so quickly that two years later, it has become master of three-quarters of Afghanistan?

Who paid for its weaponry, ammunition and vehicles? Who organized its training and logistics? Is intelligence or military assistance received from outside one of the reasons the Taliban has enjoyed astonishing, and relatively bloodless, successes over experienced moujahedeen commanders who, for nearly a decade, fought occupying Soviet troops?

Generous support for the Taliban from Pakistan, which wants to pacify its war-racked neighbor for its own strategic and economic motives, has been well documented. But is Pakistan's powerful ally, the United States, also involved in some way? Many in Kabul believe so, though again, their proof is circumstantial.

Notice the LAT refers to it as a conspiracy theory, but who remembers hearing that the Clinton administration propped up the Taliban back before 9/11?  Surely Ms Raphel has a memory of it.  Maybe she has a book in her?   And maybe Robert Redford can do another "truth" movie about this whole thing... maybe get Valerie Plame to star as Ms Raphel.  If they get to work soon they can have it out right after Hillary gets the nomination.  

Go back in the hole, Seymour

Message to award-winning journalist Sy Hersh, the guy who exposed the My Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib: the left doesn't love you unless you are exposing Republican lies, criminality and scandal.  When you expose leftist lies and propaganda you are nothing but a scummy kook, and probably a racist.

So maybe you should consider going back in the hole and waiting until another Bush comes into power, or some other Republican.

After all, Mike Morell, the former second in command at the CIA, who helped propagate the lie that Benghazi was about a hateful video from an American practicing his first amendment rights, has said the Hersh story about bin Laden is "all wrong":

"I started reading the article last night, I got a third of the way through and I stopped, because every sentence I was reading was wrong. The source that Hersh talked to has no idea what he's talking about," Morell said.

Every sentence! Even the ones where he admits the SEALs did a raid and shot bin Laden, apparently--wrong.  Wrong, wrong wrong!

In the same CBS interview the same guy, Morell, apologized to former President Bush, er, no sorry, to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, for sending him over to the UN to lobby for taking out Saddam because..

"We said he has chemical weapons, he has a biological weapons production capability, and he's restarting his nuclear weapons program. We were wrong on all three of those," he said.

So the CIA was 'all wrong'.  But it's nice to see Mr. Wrong apologize to Mr. Wrong for being wrong.  All of which makes Bush the wrongest.  Wait, was Hillary Clinton all wrong when she characterized Pakistan as helpful in getting UBL:

She said: "In fact, co-operation with Pakistan helped lead us to Bin Laden and the compound in which he was hiding."

Gee, that's exactly what Hersh said.   But it's wrong!  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Maybe Hersh didn't deserve those awards after all.  Or maybe he does.

MORE  5/11/15

It's interesting to watch the mainstream media complain about Hersh's use of one anonymous source.  Wasn't "Deep Throat" one anonymous source?

Anyway, this Eric Wemple blog post in the Post points out why this won't be a major story--it indicts the mainstream press.   It also indicts the idea that waterboarding KSM helped find al-Kuwaiti, the courier Hersh's source claims doesn't exist.  So there's reason for the right wing to scream 'wrong, wrong, wrong' on this as well.   In other words, this is likely going nowhere, or the same place Hersh's story about Bashar Assad's use of (or not) chemical weapons went.

One thing the story claims is that the 'treasure trove' of information obtained in bin Laden's lair, CDs, memory sticks, etc, did not exist.   Investigators have been grumbling about the slow-walk given to the data's release, well, why not release it now, to prove Hersh wrong?   If there really are thousands of intelligence docs redact them, and release them.

MORE  5/12/15

Interestingly, neither the WaPo nor NY Times are front paging their stories at this moment, so you have to search the search bar.  The Times' report is strange, as if giving some credence to Hersh's allegations.   They also point out that an FBI agent described the 'treasure trove' in detail at a trial for an noted AQ figure some months ago, which means the government allowed him to perjure himself.  Either that or Hersh's sources are full of BS.  Or Hersh is actually a kook. Or the Obama administration is lying.  Again. 

Either way, it's certainly entertaining to watch the left throw their hero under the bus, even if gently in some quarters.

FUNNY, THAT  5/12/15

So far the only network news org that has at least partially confirmed Hersh's reportage is NBC News..

The broadcaster has corroborated Hersh's claim that the 'walk in' asset that revealed the vital information as to where bin Laden was hiding was in fact Pakistani.

The official US line, however, maintains that the CIA located him by tracking couriers to his walled in complex in Abbottabad, Pakistan. NBC News stated that it has 'long been pursuing leads about a walk-in', and that their own findings match those reported by Hersh.

So NBC is on board.  At least in print.  At today's White House press briefing the only question NBC's White House correspondent Chris Jansing asked Josh Earnest was about getting Harriet Tubman on the 20 dollar bill. It may have been just me but Earnest seemed almost amused at such a giggly question.  He had probably prepared for worse,  but NBC saved him the trouble today. 

Actually, watching the presser is like watching a White House lecture series with the professional reporters asking weaker questions than students might during a university lecture.  When one reporter--the Fox guy--asked about an inconsistency in the Benghazi narrative Earnest shot back at him, causing many in the room to laugh at Fox.  That's their idea of speaking truth to power.

Over at the State Dept there were no questions asked about it--just like yesterday. At the same time, many prominent political reporters have spent the past few days obsessing over Jeb Bush's inartful reply to Megyn Kelly's question about re-doing the Iraq war.  It's really an amazing thing to witness. 

Dead Terrorists Update

We've seen a recent rash of reports on most-wanted terrorists and enablers going tango uniform.   Are they real?

For instance, before Christmas it was reported that AQ number three Adnan Shukrijumah, known also as "Jafar the Pilot", considered a particularly dangerous terrorist, was killed by Pakistani troops in a raid in Pakistan (shortly after the US promised another large sum of support money to that country).  After a few weeks Shukrijumah disappeared off the Rewards for Justice site run by the State Department, but he still appears on the FBI's most-wanted terrorist list.  Reasons--they are still confirming it.  Rather amazing, since they had the body and DNA testing doesn't take that long.  Just think back to bin Laden, it was done almost immediately.  Not sure why they wouldn't have shouted it from the rooftops the day after. Instead the administration didn't want anything to do with any questions about it.        

Also, there was the long sought-after former second in command of the Iraqi Ba'ath regime, Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, who was reported to be helping ISIS.  He was reported killed in a shelling near Tikrit about a week ago.  It made a flurry of news, then quickly vaporized from the news cycle.   The Iraqi government was supposed to be doing DNA testing to confirm.  In the interim a Shiite Hizballah group has claimed it's "100 percent" certain it was him based on their own tests.  You can view the corpse here--does this really look like the body of an over 70 year old man?  No bruises or bullet holes.  Does it bear a perfect resemblance to Izzat? Not really, but there is some.  Al-Duri was a rare Arab redhead, but keep in mind old Jihadists often die their beards red.  And again, the administration downplayed any questions from the press about him rather than doing the usual end-zone dance.   His loss would seemingly be a big blow to ISIS, yet nothing.  Strange. 

Finally the news today that the US blew away two most-wanted AQ terrorists, Adam aka "Azzam the American" Gadahn, and Ahmed Farouq, both American citizens on the wanted list.   Both were hit in separate non-targeted drone strikes on AQ camps--somewhere--they aren't saying very much.  The American hostage Warren Weinstein was also killed in the Farouq raid, which prompted a sort of unusual apology today from the president, taking great pains to convey that he was responsible and where the buck stopped, as if this wasn't already a given.  Of course it has never been a given, which is why this was weird. 

The White House presser today was fairly weird as well, with Josh Earnest promising unbelievable awesome transparency on the record about these deaths, then proceeding to provide almost no details about the raids due to operational security concerns.   Many journalists quizzed Earnest on whether the kills were within US law.  Maybe Loretta Lynch will decide this, after she gets through deciding on prosecuting Lois Lerner or investigating Hillary's shenanigans.  In reality it's possible he was trying to explain the tragic loss without admitting they are casualties of 'war', because the 'wars' are over, responsibly ended by Obama.  So if we aren't at war, why are we still air-raiding villages and killing civilians?    

One factoid--Mr Weinstein was mentioned many times by AQ leader Ayman Zawahiri, demanding captured AQ terrorists in exchange among other concessions, so it will be interesting to see whether the secrecy and stealth used today, and perhaps the reason they announced this today after 3 months, has something to do with pinpointing AQ Numero Uno and not just covering some hiney.  

 

Where is the Red-Headed Terrorist?

The fate of Syrian-born Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, aka Abu Musab al-Suri, aka the 'red-headed terrorist', remains unclear.  Back when the Syrian Arab Spring uprising began a few years ago, press reports suggested Assad had him in lockup and would release him if the United States didn't stop meddling or calling for regime change.

After that threat failed to stop the uprising it was reported that he was released.  Then recently it was reported again he was still incarcerated.

Why is he significant?  In the past few days images have come out of Bin Laden's Tora Bora hideout, in which Setmariam is seen beside UBL many times.  National Journal's Michael Hirsh once called him "the next bin Laden".  

Daily Mail even mentions his theory of small jihad on a large scale, something which seems to be in its infancy all around the world now.  He's also reported to have been behind the planning of the UK subway/bus attacks and perhaps the Madrid train bombings back in 2004.  So it might be helpful to know where he is.

By the way, the (other) western looking dude sitting to UBL's left is Gwynne Roberts, a British documentary filmmaker who wanted to do a story about the sheikh before he was well known. 


Regarding another dangerous terrorist, Adnan El-Shukrijumah has disappeared off the State Department's Rewards for Justice site but remains on the FBI's Most-Wanted Terrorists site.  Not sure if that's significant or just bureaucracy in action.  

28 pages? How about the UBL docs.. or the Iraq docs

While Bush haters, 9/11 truthers, and transparency lovers push for the release of the 28 pages from a 2003 Senate report that many believe will implicate the Saudis in 9/11, there's another trove of yet-to-be-analyzed docs that may shed some light on the GWoT: the bin Laden docs captured at Abbotabad.

Some of them trickled out a few years ago and a few more came out recently in the NYC trial of yet another African Embassy bomber suspect.  Here's the Long War Journal:

“Our groups inside Afghanistan are the same for every season for many years now,” Rahman wrote. “We have groups in Bactria, Bactica, Khost, Zabul, Ghazni and [Wardak] in addition to the battalion in Nuristan and Kunz,” the US government’s translation reads. Bactria and Bactica are probably poor translations of Paktia and Paktika, two provinces where al Qaeda’s allies are known to have a strong presence. Also, Kunz is likely Kunar.

Therefore, Rahman indicated that al Qaeda had a presence in at least eight Afghan provinces. The size of these “groups” was not disclosed. But earlier in the letter, Rahman mentioned that al Qaeda has “a full battalion in Nuristan and Kunar.” A translator or analyst from the US government estimated that this battalion consisted of “around 70 individuals.”

In other words, the notion that "Core AQ" has been run out of Afghanistan into the Pakistan-drone kill box only to be 'decimated' might not be exactly true. Other docs mention ties to Iran, if only from an enemy of my enemy fashion. Here's Stephen Hayes:

Hayes said the initial "scrub" of the bin Laden documents by the CIA was very successful, producing 400 intelligence reports and leading to U.S. actions around the world against al Qaeda. "Then it all stopped. The CIA basically sat on the documents. ...

I think it's because the Obama administration didn't want to know what was in them," said Hayes, adding that the documents would have had "tremendous implications" for U.S. foreign policy overall. "Once you've exposed these documents in al Qaeda's own hand, it requires the administration to act on them. And the president's argument all along has been that the war on terror is ending," said Hayes.

Emphasis added.  It's appropriate that Hayes is weighing in here--he was at the forefront to get the captured Iraqi regime documents released. Eventually they were, via a DoD web portal, only to be shut down later after the New York Times used them to reprint some sensitive nuclear information. Who knows what else those docs might show.  But by all means, we need those 28 pages!

Of course Hayes and his friend Joscelyn, along with Fox and other conservatives, were among the only outlets to report the suggested bin Laden connection with Iran...


Maybe that's because the mainstreamers want nothing to do with upending Obama's legacy project of normalizing relations with both commie Cuba and radical Iran (with neither of them reforming first).  Today we learn the new rulers of Yemen have approved direct flights from Iran.  So it appears our government has picked a devil in dealing with the other devils.  Maybe there are some documents supporting that premise somewhere. 

Still some mystery....

...in the raid to kill Usama bin Laden.   This was illustrated by an expansive NBC News story about Air Force Special Operations Weathermen:

“I guarantee you there were guys out there,” said one senior official, who requested anonymity because he isn’t authorized to discuss the bin Laden mission. Special Operations Command declined to comment directly, as did Sawtelle, the officer then in charge of the SOWTs at Hurlburt Field.

But the need for data was obvious. Pakistan’s ground weather stations are spotty and far-flung, producing forecasts too vague for military use. To compensate, at least one environmental observer was on the flight path into Pakistan, while a second dug into the mountains surrounding Abbottabad, providing environmental “overwatch” on the compound, according to military sources.

It’s unclear how they landed in those positions. SOWTs are trained to jump from tens of thousands of feet, glide through the night and hit an X anywhere on the map. But they’re equally adept at flying commercial with an Osprey backpack, North Face boots and a cover story.

Now, yes, that's interesting to say the least, assuming this story isn't complete horse manure.  If they were indeed in there then as the story indicates they were either dropped off by lead aircraft (never mentioned) or hiked into position after some kind of clandestine entry.  Assuming truth was it necessary to reveal the role of this unit to the public?  

Fall Guy

I have vowed to quit this blogging stuff over and over, since few are reading and nothing ever changes.  But somehow the events of the day always seem to force another post, so here we go.

Soon-to-be former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was recently quizzed by CNN's Barbara Starr about his role in releasing GITMO terrorists, er, armed insurgents, and whether he was being pressured by the White House in doing so.  Pay close attention to what he says about certification of release of detainees:




Now, watch White House press sec Josh Earnest answer a question about the GITMO release of the Taliban Five, making a point to name Hagel as the guy who signed off on the Taliban 5 releases...

It doesn't take George Will to figure out what's going on here. The White House, for political reasons, needs to close GITMO. They really don't care who they release in getting there other than the top few thugs like KSM (who they want transferred to US for trial) because after all, America has a big military-intelligence apparatus and can handle any blow-back.  But in doing so they likely don't want to expose any trusted Democratic ally to the liability of signing off on the releases in case one of them ends up participating in a future attack.  Looks bad for the brand. 

So they make a big to-do of announcing a 'bi-partisan' pick for Secretary of Defense, Republican Chuck Hagel.  His pick came with several juicy side benefits as well--he was the guy who generally hated Bush, thought the Iraq war was dumb and later had a dust-up with McCain and other fellow GOP Senators. He was also a distinguished veteran who could shame any GOP chickenhawk.

That's the kind of person they wanted signing off on the GITMO release forms (and overseeing military budget cuts and retreats), not Dem loyalists like Leon Panetta.  Maybe Hagel didn't realize this when he came in the door, maybe it took awhile, maybe he did but in the process of serving with these guys changed his mind.  But he clearly knows it now and seems to be upset about it to the point of making it known to the press.

One could easily blame his confession on CYA politics or perhaps a tell-all book in the offing, but it may be something more. His general message is that the administration is trying to release terrorists too fast without enough concern about their future threat, and he didn't feel comfortable doing that. One has to wonder whether the same kind of mentality entered into the apparent decision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to clandestinely send an emissary to negotiate with Gaddafy's moderate Muslim son Saif back when Obama was trying to save Benghazi?

If so, it begs the question as to whether some high level military folks in this country are questioning the foreign policy decisions of this administration to the point of them being dangerous, feeling the need to push the envelope by sidestepping the chain of command, which is unheard of and certainly a huge story should the MSM ever notice.  Yes, some of it right now could be Hillary 2016! politics, but it wasn't back then outside the possibility Hillary herself was trying to appear tough for her upcoming run, which was perhaps part of the concern.  

Add to that the story today about Rand Paul relaying details of a meeting in 2013 where the president told GOP leaders about Hillary being handed Libya, which suggests Obama was somewhat disengaged to the point of being deceived by Hillary about the threat to Benghazi resulting in an illegal war based on 'imminent threat'.  Even now we see that politics so rules this administration that they've gone into denial on whether the Taliban is a terrorist entity or not, calling them an "armed insurgency" in displays of pretzel logic like this...


All to pave the way for some kind of delusional 'end of conflict' (the reason they traded Bergdahl) so they can make peace with the Taliban, blame Bush, and move on to social justice and income redistribution before it's too late.  

To be sure, this isn't the first time a WH has fought with outside forces on controlling the narrative. They want it focused on whatever domestic thingy Obama is pushing at any given time. Right now it's 'the middle class' (odd, since he wasn't focusing on that before the mid-term elections), or generally ANYTHING but foreign policy and terrorism.  But too much denial of national security threats in the same of domestic politics can be dangerous, as many at the highest levels well know.

End of Conflict?

The conservative media keyed on White House spokesman Eric Schultz's answer to a question from ABC's Jon Karl saying that ISIS are terrorists but the Taliban are only 'armed insurgents'.  That's pretty bad.   Karl asked the question in regards to why the trade of Bergdahl was not considered giving concessions to terrorists, something they say the US won't do.  So the administration doesn't think the Taliban fit that mold.

But included in that same reply was a curious statement from Sharyl Attkisson's favorite WH staffer that Karl half-questioned, and it's actually more controversial than calling the Tollybon insurgents...



Yes, they believe the conflict is over in Afghanistan.  The war is over.  And this end of conflict required the administration to act quickly to "not leave someone behind".   Because the war was over. 

Except 10,000 troops are still there.  And their mission was quietly expanded during the holidays to make it possible to go after Taliaban insurgents if they are planning attacks on US assets or helping terrorist networks such as AQ-core or the Haqqani boys.   The Haqqani Network held control over Bergdahl.  But they are terrorists.  Unless they are not.  No worries, we can trade five untried Taliban insurgents back to them because they are not terrorists.  Unless they help terrorists.  Or it's a Blue Moon. 

As to what happens if another one of our troops gets captured now that the conflict is over, well, perhaps Lorertta Lynch could find an answer to that question. 

Shukrijumah Nailed?

Most people are probably saying "Shukra who?" For that reason this story won't produce much positive PR for the administration--not as much as it should.  But the US intelligence people know all about Adnan Gulshair el-Shukrijumah and if the story is confirmed they were high-fiving each other this morning...

An Al-Qaeda leader accused of planning to bomb the London Underground and New York Metro has been killed during a raid in Pakistan, the country's military said. Adnan el Shukrijumah, chief of global operations for the terrorist group, was killed along with two other suspected militants in Shinwarsak, South Waziristan, early this morning.

The 'most wanted' terrorist was found hiding in a compound after fleeing from a North Waziristan tribal district where the army launched a major operation against militant bases in June.

This guy was alternately called "Jafar the Pilot" among others, but whatever name he was called they always considered him one of the most dangerous "Core-AQ" guys still on the loose.   Ashcroft once called him "a clear and present danger".  He was alleged to have been behind a plot to bomb subways here in the U.S. in 2009.  Before that he was linked with fellow Floridian Jose Padilla in a the dirty bomb plot.  He's been linked with the Saudi conspiracy.  And in the so-called far right lunatic orbits he was even alleged to have been involved in the anthrax letter attacks of 2001.  That's the kind of Carmen Sandiego figure he was.

Long War Journal once called him an AQ subject-matter-expert on North America before the bin Laden raid, where after he was reported to have been elevated to a senior AQ position.  He's definitely a number three or four man in that outfit.

He's also been mentioned lately on the web, one just a week ago via Judicial Watch involving a 2010 plan to attack Oprah Winfrey's studio and the Sears Willis Tower in Chicago. El-Shukrijumah allegedly met with terrorist operators in a planning meeting near El Paso prior to the event and perhaps again about another plot in March of this year.  Guess it's not wise to be caught messing with Oprah.

Weirdly, the administration has not confirmed or commented on this yet.  Pakistan is reporting it and most of the major networks have picked up their press release, so it's hard to believe this is a ruse.  The NY Times has an interesting factoid:

It comes just over a week after a trip to Washington by the Pakistani Army chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif, who met with Secretary of State John Kerry and American military leaders in a visit intended to repair a strategic relationship that has long been scarred by acrimony and mistrust.

Hey, that's the same John Kerry who recently begged Diane Feinstein not to release the Bush terror report--at least not yet--to protect some sensitive relations overseas. Hmm, the Democrats desperately need that report out before Christmas or the GOP congress coming in next year will likely mothball it forever. What did that Pakistani general talk about with Kerry?  Does this help clear the path?   And if so, was it really that easy to take this sucker out all along?

If you're still not convinced this relatively unknown terrorist was a big fish try reading this. Also, the first time Shukrijumah was mentioned in a post here about 4 years ago there were visits from about every alphabet agency in the United States, the first and last time that has happened.  Obviously they were trolling the depths of the web looking for anything they could find on the guy.

At any rate, if there's any doubt about this it will probably be shortly erased. His brother and mother still live in Florida, and somebody will surely be asking for comments. According to them he's been out on a pilgrimage for Allah, selling Korans, etc.   So we'll see.

MORE  12/6/14

Normally I don't post WND stories due to their less-than-spectacular reputation, but that doesn't mean they are always wrong.  They've been on the Shukrijumah story for a long time, so let's cut to some quotes. First, regards the recent visit by the Pakistani general:

It comes days after Pakistani army Chief Gen. Raheel Sharif returned from a week-long visit of the U.S., the first by an army chief in four years. On Thursday, the U.S. Congress extended $1 billion in operational support to the Pakistani army despite recent tensions and mistrust. 

So on Thursday the Congress ponys up a billion to Paki, then on Friday night the Pakistani military suddenly finds and kills one of the top AQ terrorists in the world, after all these years. Amazing.

In April 2001, Shukrijumah spent 10 days in Panama, where he reportedly met with al-Qaida officials to assist in the planning of 9/11.

That's a new one on me.  But one of his advantages was said to be his ability to blend in with Central/South Americans.  More..

Following 9/11, el-Shukrijumah was reportedly singled out by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to spearhead the next great attack on America.

The fact this story isn't A1 number one shows how far away terrorism is slipping from the minds of Americans.  Not a bad thing, but it can be.  The odd thing is the lack of response from the White House--they may be waiting for absolute confirmation but this news, more than anything else, supports the idea that "core" AQ is actually on the run and decimated. AQ isn't dead by a long-shot, but the Afghanistan franchise just took a body blow.

MORE  12/7/14

Not surprisingly Peter Bergen writing in CNN celebrates the death and all but licks the president's private parts while declaring an already decimated Core AQ decimated.  Michelle Malkin, one of the few writers who've covered the Shukrijumah story over a number of years, is not as convinced.

She's correct about AQ and other terror leaders tending to die and come back as zombies, only to die again and come back.  The most notable might be Iraqi Izzat al-Douri, who has "died" at least twice (maybe more) since the 2003 invasion only to recently be implicated as a cog in the wheels of ISIS.

It is kind of weird that the US has not weighed in yet.  Rewards for Justice and the FBI terror web sites still show Shukrijumah as alive and wanted as of the time of this post.  Maybe the webmasters don't work the weekend. We'll see what happens Monday.

Meanwhile, this story from the Times is interesting:

LONDON — In a fresh spur to warming relations between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States, the American military has returned to Pakistan a senior militant leader who was captured under murky circumstances last year and whose case symbolized the deep distrust between the three countries.

Pakistani and Western officials said the United States had flown Latif Mehsud, a senior Pakistani Taliban leader being held by the Americans at Bagram Airfield, back to Pakistan on Friday. Mr. Mehsud’s release was ostensibly part of an continuing process to repatriate foreign prisoners from American detention facilities in Afghanistan before the conclusion of the formal combat mission at the end of this month.

So the US repatriated Mehsud, a captured top level Talibani (whom they actually captured from Afghanistan/Karzai govt after they had captured him from the Taliban) while also forking over a billion dollars to the Paks on Friday.  Less than a day later the Pakistanis reportedly take out a top level AQ operator who has eluded capture since 9/11.

Then today the US reportedly used drones in Pakistani territory to allegedly take out another top level AQ figure along with four top tier Taliban guys..

A top al-Qaeda leader was among five militants killed today in a US drone attack in Pakistan’s troubled North Waziristan region, a day after the chief of the terror group’s global operations was also killed in a Pakistani military operation.

Umer Farooq, believed to be in charge of al-Qaeda’s operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, was killed in the strike that took place in the Khar Tangi area of Datta Khel district in the region, where the Pakistani military has been battling Taliban and al-Qaeda-linked militants since June. A security official said Farooq was among five people killed when two missiles fired from the drone hit a compound.

Farooq is not listed on the AQ most-wanted sites, so if he was a bigshot he wasn't worth much money.  But obviously something changed very recently and this horse-trading is what success looks like now.  It would be nice to see a body or two.

Meanwhile the story about the capture of the AQ operative sent to Libya by Zawahiri to set up an AQ branch after Daffy was taken out (and before Benghazi) remains in a black media hole.  Long War's Tom Joscelyn explains the significance.  Of course, the big story yesterday was the failed hostage rescue in Yemen.

All this activity must mean something.  Again, the Democrats are desperate to get their torture report out before the Senate shuts down for the year, which according to outgoing Senator Udall will 'shock and disgust' the American people.  But it's not going to do much shocking or disgusting if AQ and ISIS terrorists are simultaneously lopping off heads and killing hostages, while WMD-linked terrorists are still running around loose with intentions of blowing up Oprah Winfrey's studios.  So it looks like some loose ends are trying to be tied up quick. 

A Tale of Two Hostages

The story of David Rohde, a reporter for the New York Times who escaped capture by the Taliban several years ago, has never been sufficiently told to the American people.   Part of the reason seems to be because of what happened behind the scenes, which makes the mainstream press appear even more unbelievably hypocritical and duplicitous than they already are.

For instance, here's how Wikipedia explains a massive press blackout engineered by the Times to help save Mr. Rohde:

Rohde's kidnapping was kept quiet by much of the world's media following a request from the New York Times not to publicize the abduction. At least 40 news agencies were reported to know about the kidnapping, but observed the media blackout.[9]

A few outlets did briefly report the news. It was first reported by Pajhwok Afghan News in November 2008, citing two Afghan officials on the day after the abduction.[10] Al Jazeera[4] and the Italian news agency Adnkronos initially reported the kidnapping, as did the right-wing blogs Little Green Footballs, The Jawa Report and Dan Cleary, Political Insomniac.

In March 2009 Michael Yon "just did a small item because it was pretty much out there." Other bloggers and agencies were contacted by the Times and agreed to take their pieces down.[11] Yon kept information subsequent to his initial report quiet "upon request from related parties."[12] Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor & Publisher, described it as "the most amazing press blackout on a major event that I have ever seen.

Keep reading that piece and you'll find that Wikipedia itself was in on the deal:

Wikipedia also participated in the media blackout. Prior to any references to the kidnapping being added to Rohde's article in Wikipedia, a Times reporter, Michael Moss, made changes to the article to emphasize the work that Rohde had done, in such a way that Rohde would be seen by his captors as being sympathetic to Muslims.

Subsequently, reports of the kidnapping, which began on the following day, were removed by Michael Moss and some Wikipedia administrators. The Times also approached Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales for assistance in enforcing the media blackout. Wales turned to "trusted" Wikipedia administrators to repeatedly edit the article to remove all references to the kidnapping, and prevent already published information from being further disseminated

What an incredible effort.  They even made up stuff to help him. 

Contrast that diligence with the sad ending to James Foley's capture. After his beheading a story soon came out that the US Military, on orders from the Commander Guy, executed a risky raid deep into Syria to rescue Mr. Foley and fellow captives but it failed.

Many at the time remarked about how such a story could put the remaining hostages' lives in danger, not to mention it being classified information.  The administration explained their hands were tied in releasing the story because someone leaked it to the press and the press was going to publish it.  So they put it out, along with a lot more details, which drew the ire of a few Pentagon officials according to Rohde's old paper. 

Now another hostage has been beheaded.  He's not a journalist (aid worker, or perhaps even MI6), but Foley and Sotloff were certainly in the same line of work Rohde was in--and there are other journalists being held. 

So why wouldn't the mainstream press exercise the same diligence with this rescue story as they did with the Rohde story?  Why didn't they tell the Obama administration they would sit on it like they did with the Rohde story?  Maybe get the New York Times involved to put some weight behind it?   They knew breaking such a story could place the others in more danger. 

It also would be helpful to know who leaked this to the press and why, or on whose authority.  The Obama administration has gone after more leakers than any previous administration therefore someone in Holder's office has surely opened a criminal investigation, right media?  So c'mon, do some digging.  A Pulitzer may await.  Do right by your colleagues. 

That was then...

John Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in 2012..

Again and again, the other side has lied about where this president stands and what this president has done. But Prime Minister Netanyahu set the record straight—he said, our two countries have "exactly the same policy…"—"our security cooperation is unprecedented..." When it comes to Israel, I'll take the word of Israel's prime minister over Mitt Romney any day.

President Obama promised to work with Russia to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and signed an historic treaty that does just that. He promised to lock down nuclear materials around the world, and he has done just that. He refused to accept the false choice between force without diplomacy or diplomacy without force.

When a brutal dictator promised to kill his own people "like rats," President Obama enlisted our allies, built the coalition and shared the burden, so that today—without a single American casualty—Moammar Gadhafi is gone and the people of Libya are free.

So on one side of this campaign, we have a president who has made America lead like America again. What is there on the other side? An extreme and expedient candidate, who lacks the judgment and vision so vital in the Oval Office. The most inexperienced foreign policy twosome to run for president and vice president in decades

Emphasis added to point out his perceived successes.  But that was then, this is now:

• Time Mag headline announcing a "Cold War II" after Russian complicity in the shoot-down of a passenger jet, with no significant consequences; 
• Israel and HAMAS locked in battle after a failed secret 9 month peace effort was abandoned;
• Iraq down the drain due to instability in Syria, where the administration failed to effectively intervene leaving over 200,000 dead civilians with a renewed precedent of allowing a dictator to remain in power after using WMDs;
• part of Ukraine ceded to Putin, who remains one of the main interlocutors over the US-led Iranian nuke agreement talks (which the Iranians just violated without penalty);
• and a teetering pause in Afghanistan after a contested election with the Taliban salivating as US troops prepare to bug out (after we traded 4 top terrorists for an Army deserter). 

Now this:

The U.S. Embassy in Libya evacuated its personnel on Saturday because of heavy militia violence raging in the capital, Tripoli, the State Department said. About 150 personnel, including 80 U.S. Marines were evacuated from the embassy in the early hours of Saturday morning and were driven across the border into Tunisia, U.S. officials confirm to CNN.

It's hard to imagine how things could be going much worse in all these hotspots.  Meanwhile, the US's fuzzy foreign policy has surely reduced the confidence and trust of our partners and allies around the world.  But this post isn't about reveling in failure to score points, as all these events are bad for America.  No, it's about confirming that blind arrogance sputtered by inept politicians trying to parlay past US failures (or media-fueled narratives of failure) into political victories does nothing to actually prevent bad things from happening once they get into power.  Photo-ops of politicians pushing reset buttons aren't magic. Words and deeds can and should come back to haunt those who use them just to get ahead or belittle opponents.

The president's current projection of nonchalance (going out fund-raising, drinking beer in pool halls, eating hamburgers and such) is no doubt a planned strategy, perhaps to show the world these terrible blow-ups are still beneath the level of alerting a US president.  However, the posturing has done nothing to solve the problems, while raising concern from the American people.  For any other leader it might be time to give a prime time address on foreign policy.   For this president it's not entirely clear whom he believes to be the main enemy.

KERRY TODAY...

Here's part of a statement from the guy who proclaimed that Obama had freed Libya:

He blamed the "freewheeling militia violence," caused by jihadist groups that have only grown in power since the ouster of former president Muammar Gaddafi, for creating an environment in which the diplomatic activities at the Libya embassy had to be suspended.

"A lot of the violence is around our embassy but not on the embassy, but nevertheless it presents a very real risk to our personnel," Kerry said.

Does the pottery barn analogy apply here?

Perfect Timing

It's not surprising that a wing nut such as myself would question the timing of anything the Decider Guy might do on terrorism.  But it is a little surprising that the State Dept press secretary was peppered with timing questions right off the bat in her briefing today, and not only by Fox.  One does have to wonder why it took so long seeing as how the indictment against Khattala was sealed almost a year ago amidst rumors he was very easy to find around the Benghazi cafe scene.  Surely it had nothing to do with Hillary's scheduled interview with Fox News tonight.

Aside from the political skepticism this is great.  If the picture released with today's stories was taken after the snatch he looks scared poopless, which is good based on the poop he sold the Times about it being our fault and such.  So it looks like one down about 23 to go.  Don't miss the fact that we're seeing yet another rendition by Obama with a terror suspect whisked away to an unknown location.  Where have we heard that complaint before?   But take heart ideologically consistent liberals, Holder is charging him with gun crimes, too.

Meanwhile you may be asking, what does the Benghazi attack have to do with Iraq?   The answer is maybe nothing, but nobody seems to be asking about this report from CNN issued shortly after the 9/11/12 attack:

U.S. intelligence believes that assailants connected to al Qaeda in Iraq were among the core group that attacked the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, a U.S. government official told CNN. That would represent the second al Qaeda affiliate associated with the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Previously, intelligence officials said there were signs of connections to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African wing of the terror group. The revelation that members of al Qaeda in Iraq are suspected of involvement in the Libya attack comes at a time when there is a growing number of fighters from that group also taking part in the Syrian civil war.

For those scoring at home, "al Qaeda in Iraq" is now called either ISIL or ISIS--the same thugs now beheading their way to Baghdad.  Maybe chairman Gowdy can unlock this mystery connection.  And maybe somebody, anybody, can explain why the president is heralding the resolve and determination of the United States in the pursuit and capture of a possible terrorist in Libya two weeks after releasing five known terrorists already in lock up while downplaying their threat?    

Wow, where did that come from?

Diane Sawyer actually looked pissed during her Hillary interview.  Maybe it was the way Hillary replied to the age question in another segment, but dang..


ABC US News | ABC Celebrity News

Or maybe this was an attempt at getting her out of the witness chair at Gowdy's Select Committee--after all, she couldn't do much worse.   This jaw dropping display of real journalism ironically came around the same time another veteran journalist, Andrea Mitchell, was shooting holes in State Department spokesgal Marie Harf's Bergdahl narrative as a mother would pick apart her child's lie. 

It's easy to say these events herald a new mainstream media, one finally ready to do their jobs.  But their history is known.  Something must be up.    

Empowering the Terrorists

Despite all the blather about the 21st century coming from the administration and their various cheerleaders nobody seems to have noticed that the Taliban has yet to emerge from the 7th century.  They remain a barbaric pack of fundamental nutcakes who really have no country.  They once acted as Usama bin Laden's personal protection army, which assisted him in pulling off 9/11, and are proud of it.

But we are told the Taliban is different than AQ.  They didn't actually attack us, we invaded them.  We went to Afghanistan to fight AQ, not the Taliban.   Strange though, the de facto leader of AQ, Ayman Zawahiri, sometimes known as Abu Dangerfield, has asked for Taliban figures along with his own jihadists in return for their captured hostage Warren Weinstein (the man most of America has never heard about). Wonder if any of those Taliban guys Zawahiri wanted were included in Obama's swap?

At any rate, Congressman Mike Rogers says the swap elevated the status of this barbaric cult army, and indeed it did.  That's one of the main reasons America had a policy of not negotiating with terrorists--at least publicly--to avoid placing the terrorists on the same level as us.   In truth Bergdahl was no POW, that requires the Taliban being seen as a legitimate government with a legitimate army.  No, he was a captured hostage held by terrorists, just like Weinstein, just like Daniel Pearl, just like Nick Berg.  But the administration has admitted that they want to legitimize these barbarians because they are important as a 'part of any future Afghanistan' in the 'reconciliation' process.   And that's what losing a war in the 21st century looks like.   

By the by, a couple of recent observations.

1.  Did the Taliban guys take up yoga in the big house?  If so, why should anyone believe they actually liked it?  After all, we are being told that anything traitorous that Bergdahl might have done could be dismissed on the account of Stockholm Syndrome and Bee Gees Syndrome (Stayin Alive). So maybe the Talibani headchoppers took up yoga to make themselves look harmless to the various brains running the government so they could go back home.

2.  We are getting leaks about Bergdahl from the VA hospital facility providing him quality affordable health care.   One, he doesn't like being addressed as "Sargeant".  That says something.  Two, he claims to have been kept in a box after trying to escape, which sort of confirms the Fox New James Rosen story from Dewey Clarridge that outraged so many on the left. 

3.  A band of 'militants', also known as 'gunmen', attacked the Karachi International Airport today.  Fortunately these militants, their motives completely unknown and unimaginable, didn't destroy any aircraft, according to the AP.  Except the one they did.  For those in the Kardashian set who've stumbled onto this blog by mistake (and are amazingly still reading), Karachi is in Pakistan--or you may know it as Pockeeston in Obamaspeak.  Evidently these militant gunmen had machine guns and RPGs and at least one suicide bomber.  Hmm, who could they be?  Franciscan Monks?  Maybe Hare Krishnas.  Hey, it was at an airport.   

So who outed the Kabul Chief of Station?

How long does an investigation of such a thing take?  After all, they know who did it.  Any garden variety IT guy could determine such a thing in no time. So what's going to happen to that person?  What's the accountability?  Was it possibly intentional?  Valerie Plame is outraged and wants to know!  

Has anyone checked on Siddiqui lately?

An oldie from 2010:

Now, in the newest twist in the saga of the female terrorist dubbed “Lady al-Qaeda” by the New York press, Siddiqui’s family members have appealed to the Taliban to facilitate her release. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid declared last week:

Give us Siddiqui and we will give you captured U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl.

So apparently there are some terrorists the US would not trade for a man left behind.  For those who've forgotten or never knew, Siddiqui is a US-trained scientist arrested and convicted of terrorism. Her claim to fame is being married to Ammar al-Baluchi, yet another terrorist relative of KSM who is one of the main 9/11 defendants housed at Gitmo (evidently not available for trade but one never knows).  He hails from the Quetta area of Pakistan, a weird origin of hate for the US since the 90s, perhaps seeded by the Saudis.

Why bring this up?   The question now is who the US would consider trading for a captured American. Let's say somehow terrorists managed to capture John Kerry--who might Obama consider giving up to get him back?  He gave the Taliban five high level combatants for an Army private who might have deserted.  Are we going to just hope that never happens?  The 9/11/12 riots in Cairo were in part due to a demand to return the Blind Sheikh.   

Part of the delusion we're seeing now is an administration pulling off this swap as cog of 'ending the war' in Afghanistan, which involves flim-flamming the public into believing the Taliban isn't really a part of the global jihadist movement spearheaded by AQ and can therefore be separated into a single entity we can deal with directly like a legitimate political group.  In reality they know, or should know, the war is not going to be "over" just because we remove our troops from 'armed conflict' somewhere.

About those Taliban Terrorists...

...you know, the harmless ones traded for the mysterious non-POW prisoner of war who served with honor and distinction by wandering off his base.  It's interesting that an administration that has expressed the importance of trying every AQ terrorist in federal court to show the strength of our American 'democracy' the same does not apply to any Taliban detainees because they are 'prisoners of war'.  This despite their coming from a government the US did not formally recognize when hostilities began in 2001.  Which is why the State Dept yesterday formally called them 'enemy combatants'.  For some reason they will not face any courts despite their complicity in the 9/11 'crime' for which KSM and others will be tried. 

Anyway, consider this from some years ago...

Meeting of Mr. M.O.M. with Sheikh Maulana Fazlur Rahman on Sunday, 11/28, 7:45 PM

Words of welcoming.

Probably M.O.M.: We are aiming to arrange a meeting between you and Mr. President Leader (translator’s note: this is how Iraqi officials refer to Saddam). But in the beginning we were instructed that Mr. Vice-President will meet you. I personally met Hekmatyar (translator’s note: an Afghani warlord fighting the Taliban) and he asked us to interfere for the possibility of closer relations with the Taliban. And he sent us emissaries concerning this issue.

Fazlur Rahman: I am the one who started with this issue, the relation between Taliban and Iraq, and it is our idea. The brothers in Afghanistan are facing the pressure of America, and are struggling against America and aim to have some connections between Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is a good start to establish the relations with Iraq and Libya and our association has taken this responsibility upon her. I already met with Mr. the Vice-President and the previous head of the directorate, may God rest his soul (translator’s note: apparently the head of the directorate passed away) and both proposed that Hekmatyar and the Taliban should get to an agreement. I spoke with the Taliban about this issue and they started meeting with delegations from the Islamic Party, and I met Mullah Omar and his reply was positive.

As a party, our stand is that there should be an agreement between the Taliban and the rest of the opposition, Shah Ahmad Massoud and Rabbani. And Mullah Omar said that we are looking towards this and that (not clear) and (not clear) and Ahmad Al Kilani and Jalal Al Din Hakkani do not oppose us. Therefore, Hekmatyar is on the positive way but we are in a war situation and that needs a lot of trust, and there are hurdles to this because he fought us and killed us and he has problems with the opposition in the North and with us. After repeated contacts we will reach an agreement, but in the form of steps. Concerning the relations with Iraq, he said that they are our brothers and Muslims and are facing pressures from America, like us and like Sudan and Libya. And he (Mullah Omar) desires to get closer relations with Iraq and that Iraq may help us in reducing our problems. Now we are facing America and Russia. He requested the possibility of Iraq intervening to build a friendship with Russia since Russia is no more the number one enemy. And we request Iraq’s help from a brotherly point of view. They are ready for this matter and they prefer that the relation between Iraq and Taliban be an independent relation from Hekmatyar’s relation with the Taliban. We want practical steps concerning this issue and especially the relationship with the Taliban and (not clear, but could be Iraq).

The above was supposedly taken from a notebook carried by an Iraqi Intelligence Service officer, which was captured after the fall of Baghdad.  It covers a time period around 1999, right after Clinton bombed both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Whether it's genuine or not, there were documented contacts between the Saddam government and the Taliban from other sources. One has to figure they weren't talking about the price of chai...

Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey, went to Afghanistan in December with the knowledge of the Taliban and met with Osama bin Laden. It's known through a variety of intelligence reports that the US has, but it's also known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place.

SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one US government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.

This is where the Clinton aspect comes in.   The 'other half' is running in 2016, so what might spill out about Bubba's actions back in the halcyon 90s before America knew the terrorists really hated us?  You can find things on the net about the UNOCAL oil deals in the 90s in Afghanistan, which implicate both political sides.  Here's one that blames Bubba for allowing the modern Taliban to form in the mid-90s:

According to Rohrabacher, the Clinton administration played a role in creating the Taliban by giving a 'green light' to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other gulf states to fund, direct, and organize the Taliban. Rohrabacher said at one point on the house floor in a Sept. 17th [1999] speech that the Clinton administration promised Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that it wouldnt overthrow the Taliban.

The UPI reported it. Also he made all to familiar accusations during the past eight years. He accused a department; the state department to be exact, of key withholding documents that would show the Clinton administration supported the terrorist Taliban movement and its seizure of power in Afghanistan. The official he blamed specifically was assistant secretary at that time, one Karl Inderfurth.

This past history would not be a problem were Billary not in the mix.  It's been long-forgotten and could stay in that fuzzy place.  The reason it didn't come up in 2008 is because it helped Obama, and McCain wanted nothing to do with dredging up the past.  But if memories get revived things like this may pop back up (it's useful to watch that MacVicar report from 1999 again because it solidifies what bin Laden was really trying to do with 9/11).  All it takes is a rogue candidate to do it during a debate.   

Anyway, clearly there was considerable jockeying for power in South Asia during the late 90s. If Clinton was favoring the Taliban at the behest of getting a pipeline deal for UNOCAL then where did bin Laden fit in?  An agent of Saudi Arabia in stopping it?  An independent agent for the Muslim Ummah?  The cruise missiles launched by Bubba in 1998 at Khost and other places across Afghan were in response to the African Embassy bombings and surely would seem like the end of any relationship.  Indeed the Coll book "Ghost Wars" claims the Taliban stopped playing ball on the pipeline around then, so perhaps they became an enemy at that juncture.  Perhaps the Iraqi contacts explain why the vaunted Richard Clarke would worry that bin Laden might "Boogie to Baghdad" if we missed killing him...

Specifically, in February 1999 Clarke wrote the Deputy National Security Advisor that one reliable source reported Iraqi officials had met with Bin Ladin and may have offered him asylum. Therefore, Clarke advised against surveillance flights to track bin Laden in Afghanistan: Anticipating an attack, “old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”, where he would be impossible to find.[24]

Clarke also made statements that year to the press linking Hussein and al-Qaeda to an alleged joint-chemical-weapons-development effort at the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.[25] In Against All Enemies he writes, "It is certainly possible that Iraqi agents dangled the possibility of asylum in Iraq before bin Laden at some point when everyone knew that the U.S. was pressuring the Taliban to arrest him. If that dangle happened, bin Laden's accepting asylum clearly did not," (p. 270).

In an interview on March 21, 2004, Clarke claimed that "there's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda, ever."[26]

So there's that.  But who the hell knows for sure. The international drug trade surely plays a shadowy role in all of this.  One thing is for sure--Billary cannot afford to have any of their past dredged up before 2016.  Benghazi will be enough.  None of the GOP presidential candidates will likely have any past connections to the politics of Iraq or 9/11, like Obama, who will be bringing the war to a responsible loss around the main campaign season. They'll probably do everything possible to look forward and not 'in the rear view mirror', perhaps to include threats and intimidation. It's worth noting that this time the press will be fully on Billary's side against any Republican. 

Lots of questions.  But nobody is still talking about Shinseki.

More Bergdahl

The stories coming out on the sergeant and his father are pegging the weird-stuff-o-meter.  From CBS News:

"But most of all, I'm proud of how much you wanted to help the Afghan people and what you were willing to do to go to that length," Bob Bergdahl said, choking up as his spoke. "I'll say it again: I'm so proud of how far you were willing to go to help the Afghan people. And I think you have succeeded. He did not explain what he meant by his comments.

Go help the people?  Succeeded?  Well, one explanation could be that he thinks his son deserted to help the Taliban, which would in turn help Afghan children by stopping us from 'air raiding villages and killing civilians' or the like.  Guess it depends on the meaning of "Afghan people".

It's tempting to jump full monty into thinking the worst here, but maybe there's a surprise ending.  Is it possible the father played a role, pretending to have sympathy and talking about getting prisoners out of GTMO or pandering to the "Islamic Emirate" to keep his slim hopes alive for his son's return, while son was playing a role to save his skin?  Yes.  Then again, the stuff coming from some soldiers makes it seem less likely:

"I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on," said former Sergeant Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."

It's hard to believe the son was playing a role if he walked off the base in that fashion.  Surely he wasn't acting on behalf of the intel agencies--losing other soldiers in the pursuit of finding him just to keep his cover protected would be outrageous.  It's certainly possible he was just a confused peacenik who realized he was a peacenik when he got to Afghan then checked out, not directly wanting to assist any enemies.  Maybe dad is still playing a role hoping the military will go easy.  But did he really need to open his comments with Arabic (or Pashto)?  

If Bergdahl is indeed a deserter who deliberately turned on America and was exchanged for 5 serious Taliban terrorists then the Saturday photo-op at the White House was one shameful event.  Not that such a thing is surprising-- it fits in with his overall philosophy of outreached hands to our foreign enemies and dovetails with the West Point speech and his overall promise to "end the war responsibly", which requires negotiating with terrorists not named "the GOP".  This, despite past words....

The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations?

That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

....words used to win an election so he could downsize the imperialistic military and transform America into the kind of socialist Utopia his father dreamed about, as discussed in the D'Souza movie.  He previewed what ending a war in the 21st century looks like to the cadets the other day; funny, it looks just like losing.  A new fight lies ahead--battling global warming. 

While it would have been hard to imagine the current state of affairs back in 2001, negotiating with the guys who helped AQ pull off 9/11, at least we got bin Laden and took out the terrorist government of Saddam Hussein.  Mughniyah and Arafat are gone, along with Saleh and Gaddafy.  Gaddafy's nuke program was smashed and some of Assad's WMDs are gone.  All that yellowcake sitting in Iraq has been moved. KSM is in lockup.  So there were some successes.  At the same time Iran is worse and Pakistan is no worse, while AQ has spread out far and wide.  We're considerably deeper in debt and unable to project as much power for good.  The populace is detached and divided.  The mother of all battles has yet to be decided, outside of Washington DC at least.  

At any rate, the questions will continue coming in--not about the VA scandal, which has now largely been erased from the headlines.  Not about the blowing of cover of the Kabul CIA Station Chief--that's under an internal investigation even though they know exactly who did it.  If Bergdahl wasn't a hero that will be bad, but it won't matter that Obama broke the law to get him out because like everything else, nothing will result.  The age of accountability ended on January 21, 2009.   There's still plenty of time left before it starts again.

MORE  6/2/14

Carney is on the air right now being grilled with marshmallow questions about all of this--of course he's rationalizing and saying that there's 'ample precedent' for such a thing in 'armed conflict'.  In other words, these morons somehow consider the war in Afghanistan somehow different than the overall GWoT.  That's a scary thought.

But here's another thought bubble.  If the administration didn't mind sending five Talibanis to Qatar in exchange for a possible deserter, why would they have any problem trading Ramzi Yousef, KSM or the Blind Sheikh if there were other questionable characters to bring back home?   Yousef claims he converted to Christianity, so surely Qatar could assure us he wouldn't go back to war again. 

MORE  6/3/14

This entire event is astounding, jaw dropping, really.  The administration spent the day arguing that this was not a hostage-terrorist situation, but a 'prisoner swap' in an 'armed conflict' and that the law was skirted due to a threat to Bergdahl.  That presumes a few things.

One, that this 'armed conflict' really has nothing to do with terrorism at all, it's just some war over there somewhere.  That's how Obama wants the vast Kardashian middle to see it, therefore he can end it without people feeling like we're still threatened--after all, the Taliban never attacked us!  That's like saying the Italians never attacked us in World War Two.

Two, if this was a 'prisoner' swap that means we just swapped "enemy combatants" (State Dept's designation) for a prisoner of war.  Does that mean the war on terror is actually a war, and are enemy combatants now just like regular combatants?

Three, the administration keeps referring to Sgt Bergdahl "getting the care he needs" at VA/DoD facilities.  How weird, coming only a day after General Shinseki was fired from the VA for allowing a scandal about other veterans (presumably not deserters) not getting the care they needed. 

Bergdahl Swap

Who isn't happy this soldier is reunited with his family? Who's truly happy with the way Obama did it?

America's official public policy has always been to never negotiate with terrorists. We've done it before, as have most other Western countries, in a back-room kind of way.  But never overtly.  Never celebratory, as Obama press announcement seemed.  This surely signals a policy change.  No matter to the politicians, all they think about are short term gains during a crisis.  Besides,

A U.S. officials stressed that the detainees were transferred after it was assessed that they did not present any threat to U.S.

How comforting.  Like Uncle Saddam--they probably like Doritos, too.  

As to the illegality of doing this, meh. The Commander in Chief should have latitude over such deals, which is why Obama included one of those evil signing statements (that he bashed Bush for doing) saying he had the latitude to ignore what the bill made illegal.  His response now is probably 'bring it on'.  They won't, they'll just make some noise, because they know a CinC should have this power.  It's his use of the power that is at issue.  

As to the timing, that's obvious.  Within a span of 24 hours after General Shinseki was forced to retire due to the VA mess they also fired said goodbye to their best friend Jay Carney, let it leak that golfer mega-star Phil Mickelson was under suspicion (not indictment or anything) of insider-trading, then rescued Bergdahl after five years.  A wee bit too convenient.

Not like they didn't need a diversion from the dead vets and what the VA scandal says about government-run health care in general.  Or the fact that someone known to the administration leaked the name of the Kabul CIA Station Chief last week.  Everything is political for these guys, so discounting their skill at running media diversions is as foolhardy as ignoring the media's predisposition to play along.

Meanwhile, here's some mug shots of the nice fellows released to the protection of Qatar (who once protected KSM before 9/11)..

Surely they are nice to animals, young boys and women.   

So.  We have a president who adamantly refused to negotiate with Republicans (who Biden called terrorists) in his own country over a debt ceiling deal who has now cavalierly changed American policy on dealing with real terrorists.  It's hard to think there's any silver lining.  The only possible hope is that these guys will be spied upon, followed, watched and tracked of their every movements.  Who knows, maybe they were injected with RFID chips during the sleepy time at GTMO.

Chances are Obama doesn't care they were among the group who helped AQ kill 2900+ Americans 13 years ago.  He doesn't mind that they coddled bin Laden allowing him to set up the attack, then refused to hand him over afterwards.  It's possible the administration has issued orders not to obliterate them once freed in order to keep the trust window open for more negotiations with the enemy.  Droning them would be a little tacky for a guy who's trying to lose the war responsibly.  Justice says they deserve to meet Allah sooner than later, like accidentally falling off that big skyscraper in Dubai.  Maybe someone will do the right thing eventually.

MORE  6/1/14

Various and sundry coming in from the bowels of the internets..

1.  Did the Kabul CIA Station Chief that was outed last week when Obama was in town know about this swap?

2.  Did the father grow the beard as a statement on getting his son back or in some kind of sympathy play?

3.  Panetta was offered the deal four years ago and turned it down according to Face the Nation.  That means the deal has variously been on the table for awhile.  That means the urgency mentioned by Hagel this morning was possibly more an urgency to deflect from the Shinseki firing.  Yes, they think we're that stupid.  And yes, they are that craven.

 

Fools Rush In

The NY Times' Pakistani correspondent, Carlotta Gall, seems like a reporter's reporter, if the story she just broke is any clue.  She's been assigned to that backwards hellhole region since 9/11, venturing into areas that few reporters go.

And after years of searching she says the Pakistani ISI knew a lot more about bin Laden than they will admit:

Finally, on a winter evening in 2012, I got the confirmation I was looking for. According to one inside source, the ISI actually ran a special desk assigned to handle Bin Laden. It was operated independently, led by an officer who made his own decisions and did not report to a superior. He handled only one person: Bin Laden.

I was sitting at an outdoor cafe when I learned this, and I remember gasping, though quietly so as not to draw attention. (Two former senior American officials later told me that the information was consistent with their own conclusions.) This was what Afghans knew, and Taliban fighters had told me, but finally someone on the inside was admitting it. The desk was wholly deniable by virtually everyone at the ISI — such is how supersecret intelligence units operate — but the top military bosses knew about it, I was told.

She is scratching her head wondering why the US Government (obviously both Bush and Obama) have not seemingly understood the motives of Pakistan in this WoT thing.  Pakistan formed the Taliban, they probably ran bin Laden, and they will have their proxies sweep in and take over Afghanistan as soon as we leave. It's far too easy to pawn it off to oil or the military-industrial complex.  But pawning it off to bigger and more troublesome things is hard to do without total sunshine.  Maybe it's time for Jack Nicholson again...