Update Update

Just wondering about some forgotten stories...

.. about the important hunt for the non-Islamic African terrorist Joseph Kony.  Some may recall Obama sending several hundred American troops to help bring him to justice a number of years ago.  Not much news since, but the WaPo has just released an update..

As their mission stretches into a fifth year, however, U.S. troops have turned to some unsavory partners to help find Kony’s trail. Working from a new bush camp in the Central African Republic, U.S. forces have begun working closely with Muslim rebels — known as Seleka — who toppled the central government two years ago and triggered a still-raging sectarian war with a campaign of mass rapes and executions.

The Pentagon had not previously disclosed that it is cooperating with Seleka and obtaining intelligence from the rebels. The arrangement has made some U.S. troops uncomfortable.

Wonder if those Muslim "rebels" are actually Muslims, or are they non-Muslims like ISIS?  Or are non-Muslims like ISIS the ones Obama was talking about when he said non-Muslims should not condemn Islam due to Islamic terrorism, or was he talking about Christians?  And is Joseph Kony a Christian terrorist or just someone who is perverting Christianity?   Confusing. 

...and in another story, what about Obama's favorite general, Hoss Cartwright?  A few years ago he made news when he became a target of a US Attorney-led investigation of a leak of top secret information to the press on Iran.  Last word was that it was 'stalled' due to concerns over the Iran deal.   Well, it's done now, so what's going on?   Remember, David Petraeus was prosecuted for leaking in less time.  And he's not the only one.    

Oh well, maybe CBS will do a 60 Minutes special on some of this real soon.  Maybe they can get Lara Logan on the case. 

Ebola Chaos

What's a public official to do?   They cannot have people exposed to Ebola, a virus with no vaccine and a proven high mortality rate, running around a city "self-monitoring", even if it might work.  The political fallout of a worse case is off the charts.

But how do they justify quarantines when the leader of the federal response is hugging an Ebola victim the same day she is released from the hospital? 

It should be obvious the virus isn't transmitted through the air at this point.  Even close contact might not spread it, as the relatives of Thomas Duncan can now attest.  At the same time, the doctor who assumed normal frivolities around New York City less than 2 weeks after returning from the hot zone (and somehow making it though the thermometer gauntlet at JFK) was thought to be meticulous in his protection routine, yet he came down with the virus anyway.  So there is still some uncertainty.  As a rule public officials have a hard time playing games of risk-reward with such uncertainties.  Ergo, Christie and Cuomo's bi-partisan quarantine order.

But there are political risks anyway.  Already the quarantine is beginning to blowback on Christie in the form of the nurse selected as patient one:

Hickox says she has asked repeatedly but hasn't been told how long she'll be held at the hospital. "To put me in prison," she said, "is just inhumane."

War on women!   Notice the CNN report has not one mention of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who was just out the other day mocking the idea of 'self monitoring', calling it an oxymoron.   Yet patient one and CNN are laying blame on the fat guy. 

At the same time, grabbing citizens and placing them into mandatory quarantine, without access to lawyers or other advocates, is a long-held fear of the conservative right. It's something Obama was supposed to do, you know, the FEMA camps. Now a GOP governor is on the leading edge.  Alex Jones' head has probably exploded.  

And couldn't Christie have at least have called Governor Perry to get some advice on how they handled the mandatory quarantine of Thomas Duncan's relatives, who didn't seem to complain much (if there were any breathless CNN stories about Duncan's relatives being denied their civil rights and being treated inhumanely they seem to have disappeared now).   Ah, politics again. 

But a solution exists that doesn't involve government, one wrapped more in personal responsibility and civics. Nurse Hickox is associated with Doctors Without Borders, a group that has provided a large number of workers to the hot zones while at the same time taking a somewhat liberal approach regards returning volunteers.  This despite the fact the group has seen 16 workers infected with Ebola in the hot zones, with 9 of them dying as of October 14.  Another humanitarian group providing workers is Samaritan's Purse, who has their own approach to returning workers:

The relief group began requiring all returning staff to stay isolated for 21 days, away from family members. The organization houses workers within an hour’s drive of medical facilities, such as Emory University or the NIH, which are equipped to handle Ebola patients, in case someone gets sick. The workers, who are paid their normal salaries, are not allowed to take public transit or touch anyone, and they must take their temperature multiple times a day.

“That’s just a part of the deal, and they have accepted that,” said Isaacs, who acknowledges that the requirements make it potentially more difficult to recruit volunteers to work in West Africa. “We’ve never felt comfortable that just coming back and letting people go about life as normal and take their temp two times a day was sufficient.”

They admit their extra rigor might dissuade more volunteers, but listen to the comments of the quarantined nurse in New Jersey:

Hickox said she worries that her experience will discourage other aid workers from going to West Africa to help quell the Ebola outbreak. ..

[snip to a few sentences down]  Someone asked me earlier would I do this again if I knew what would happen, and my answer is categorically yes," she said. "I feel incredibly privileged to be able to do this work."

So yes and no.

The bottom line is that people are scared of the unknown.  In such times they expect prudence from public officials.  They see people dressed like astronauts still getting the virus and it's worrisome. They see Obama and all the other federal officials bending over backwards to dispel any notion of a problem, first saying it would never come to our shores, then saying it wouldn't spread, then it wouldn't become 'major'.  They remember Obama saying "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period".

Then they see people who might have been exposed but are not yet symptomatic breezing into the country past thermal scans that are useless unless someone has symptoms.  And they see an approach taken by groups like Samaritan's Purse and think "that sounds reasonable".   As time goes by and an outbreak doesn't occur, things will get better, whether by chance or by quarantine.  Then all the politicians can pat themselves on the back accordingly and we can all move on to the next crisis.

Perusing the latest Clinton Library Docs

It's Friday before the Columbus Day weekend, so what better time than to release more required documents from the Clinton Library?!   A lot of stuff, but here are some snippets from the section on "African Embassy Bombings":

later in the same doc..

Notice what the White House was crossing out in this talking point outline--any mention of AQ and the likelihood they would attack again.  Their first draft, just like the first guess on Benghazi, seemed correct.  Then politics appears to have taken over. 

The WaPo took interest in an exchange of a Clinton staffer dissing Jimmy Carter for penning an negative op-ed on the retaliatory bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan in 1998, thought by the administration to have been a plant producing VX nerve gas for bin Laden (with help from Iraqi scientists).   But check out this verbiage...

Ah, the 'full information'.  At some point during the late 90s everyone pretty much agreed the al-Shifa bombing was a big mistake, ie, "Clinton bombed an aspirin factory and killed the night watchman based on false information" to 'wag the dog'.  Everybody, that is, but Sandy Berger and Dan Benjamin, who had recommended it and who've never come off their decision.

And from the looks of this memo there were others in the administration who appeared to know more than was being publicly stated, to the point that if Jimmy Carter knew everything he wouldn't have written the op-ed.  So, what was that information?  And why has the mainstream media never tried to pry it out of these guys? 

Battle Lines on Ebola?

This CBS News headline struck me as odd:

White House pushes back against Ebola response critics

Hmm. Who are those critics, again? The story hints at the culprits in the 4th paragraph:

Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina even accused the administration of neglect Friday for not having an Ebola czar.

So the first critic mentioned was "Republican...". The story then mentions the administration's pushback, specifically the press conference given Friday at the White House. Yet nowhere did it mention the TOUGHEST QUESTION ASKED during that presser, which came from.... the New York Times.

So are we witnessing a mainstream media outlet trying to use the Ebola event to draw invisible battle lines between the White House and the GOP, perhaps using the fact the virus comes from Black Africa to suggest racist overtones before the mid-term elections? It wouldn't be surprising.

Meanwhile, more is coming out on the Dallas infection. Some Fed Ex workers in Monrovia claim Duncan knew he had the infection and was trying to reach America where health care is better to save his life. That certainly would be consistent with initial reaction by many here in the states.  By the way, that does not necessarily mean he was symptomatic and therefore contagious on the aircraft--just that he suspected he soon would be.

As to the administration's press conference, this was a talking point offered:

"Every Ebola outbreak over the past 40 years has been stopped," said Monaco. "We know how to do this, and we will do it again."

And we can all hope and pray they do. But we've never had a case in the United States, so this is uncharted territory.  By the way, the attempts to quell panic are understandable, but if they are misrepresenting the threat (such as what they've done with "core" al Qaeda) it does nothing but lessen confidence people have in government, something we all will need if things get worse. 

MORE  10/5/14

Legal Insurrection taking notice with a nice roundup.

Aviation Update

Slowly but surely the Ebola traveler has been named and his itinerary published: Monrovia-Brussels to a United flight leaving September 19th; connection at Washington Dulles on the 20th with a flight to DFW.

Meanwhile this guy.....

...has been telling everyone not to worry because Ebola can only be transmitted when a virus carrier displays symptoms.  There was 'zero risk of transmission' on the flights.  I am not questioning that. 

But I do question a few things.  The Dallas victim was able to board a flight after coming in direct close contact with a woman who had the disease and died.  He knew he was a possible carrier and might come down with the disease at any minute.  Matter of fact that's probably why he got on the flight to "visit relatives" in Dallas--an attempt to save himself.  We have better hospitals.  Was it only dumb luck he stayed symptom free all the way to Texas?

In other words, what happens when someone boards one of these long international flights, shows no signs of fever upon boarding, but comes down with a fever in-flight?  Can they or will they be isolated onboard?  Will countries or airports refuse landing rights if the flight crew tries to divert or declare a medical emergency to offload the sick passenger?  Could we have some kind of JV version of  "Pandora's Clock"?

Or let's say the person begins to come down with the early symptoms during the last leg of the flight but manages to hide it until deplaning, then gets off and walks through the airport, opening doors, touching walls and bathroom fixtures, sneezes, etc, on the way to customs?  Or gets through customs undetected and continues out into the world outside?  Seems unlikely the CDC could track down everybody he/she came in contact with. 

Now, everyone knows we are the beacon of freedom around the world and nobody wants to restrict the freedom to travel.  But we have a border.  Non-citizens traveling to the United States from the Ebola hot zone countries need visas to enter the US.  Should anything be done in this area?  Evidently there is a test to determine if someone has the virus before they are symptomatic (if the story is correct) so why not insist all passengers to the US get the test as a requirement for a travel visa, at least for awhile until the outbreak is quelled?  Some countries have already required entry visas to address this, but today the State Department was asked and the spokeslady, with a smirk, said they are not considering any such restrictions.  Let's hope they don't kill anyone with PC.

Into Africa

First of all, happy Mother's Day to all the moms out there.  Not sure they celebrate the day in Nigeria, but if so it's got to be even more gut-wrenching under the circumstances, something we in America can't exactly relate to.  Other than 9/11 and the few domestic attacks we've had over the years most can't relate to a religious terrorist group kidnapping girls from a school to sell them off to thugs or worse.  If asked on the street who would do such a thing in America, many might say Christians or the GOP. 

But none of this should be a particularly stunning outrage because by now everyone should understand the enemy.  But to understand an enemy one must first understand there is an enemy. 

Liberal politicians in America have tried their hardest over the last two decades to pretend these kinds of things aren't so important, which allows them to focus on domestic agendas or social justice.  Terrorism is the result of global poverty, ie, white greed or western meddling, therefore the help should go to the perpetrators themselves...

Similarly, in his book Who killed Daniel Pearl? Bernard-Henri Levi admits that the presence of Jihadists was “an open secret” for the intellectuals, humanists and journalists who covered the Balkan wars and that it was a secret they took care to keep from the public.

Why? Because they urged Western intervention and if the public knew the truth it would object to enhancing the Jihadists power and agenda. Indeed, I suspect that Clarke along with the rest of the Clinton administration similarly believed that their anti-terrorist strategy would not withstand public scrutiny.

Bush changed the paradigm, but Obama changed it back---terrorism is best handled as a law enforcement action--like Benghazi, to be handled by a bunch of guys in white shirts and thin black ties.  And now, hashtags. 

Speaking of Benghazi, the Dems say it's outrageous to consider any further discovery over that phony scandal, despite many questions and emails still remaining.  The modern truth-loving left has declared another debate over, time for the flat-earthers to move on and shut up.  

Which is strange, considering that former committee chair and soon to be ex-congressman Mike Rogers is a curious character in all of this.  Doesn't Nancy Pelosi want to know more about why he was running an investigation that had a tangential tie to his wife?   Wouldn't her colleagues like to know whether Boehner actually knows more about what was going on than advertised or whether he might be stringing his Tea Party caucus members along with perhaps the final goal of a public failure?  Sound outrageous?  Yeah, so was this. So why wouldn't the left be stoked?  Maybe it's because they know we would find out Benghazi was an example of repeating past failures of the Balkans.

Meanwhile, there are no hashtags for the fallen Americans of Benghazi or Algeria (the forgotten attack). And there won't be, because they were mainly white guys involved in the military industrial complex/national security apparatus/Big oil and gas.  The president doesn't personally take up those causes because there's no political upside to it.  Black schoolgirls in poverty-ridden Nigeria make for much better posters, even if they might perhaps inadvertently remind certain pinheads about the barbarity we still face, or inadvertently become fodder for increasing the ole military industrial complex.

But maybe the hashtags will do some good in the long run.  Maybe they will remind the youngsters of exactly who the real terrorists are and what they want.

Terrorism Update

It's terrible that scores of mostly Christian girls have been abducted by Islamic crackpots in Nigeria.  That's what head-choppers do--remember Beslan?  These are the same 'extremists' who attacked a mall in Nairobi last year and killed scores of innocents.  They attacked a church early in the year but drew little outrage from political corners here.  

Now we're all supposed to be outraged.  The First Lady is holding a sign with a hashtag, looking glum.  But wasn't it also terrible when the Islamic government in Sudan allowed the killing, raping and violation of human rights of non-Arabs in Darfur.  By the way, where is George Clooney on this now?   Were there White House hashtags on Darfur? 

Those with keen memories may remember when 3 Americans were killed by elements of AQIM in Algeria last year for the crime of working at a gas plant.  Of course it was tragic when 4 Americans were killed in an attack in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 but wanting anything more on that story now qualifies a person as a conspiracy loon following a phony scandal.  Maybe Obama will come on his broadcast Saturday holding a sign with hashtag phony scandal. 

What about the past actions of Joseph Kony?  Horrible.  Definitely.  

So all of the above brings up a question-- exactly what is Obama's policy on terrorism anymore?  What triggers a response and what triggers silence or even cover-ups or outrage?  

Well, he's sent troops to Africa--not to officially search and destroy AQ--but to look for Kony.  We have a drone base or two there, but they seem to be pretty quiet.  Now the Obama folks are prepared to send help of some description to find these girls, this after the Clinton State Department once resisted calling the terrorists terrorists.   The killers of 7 Americans in northern Africa remain at large but they are being pursued by FBI gumshoes, not troops. 

Meanwhile, AQ factions are fighting and committing atrocities in Syria and Iraq but that's a no go zone.  Other terrorists are holing up in Yemen and are shot at by drones every other week.  We're apparently bugging out of Afghanistan at the end of the year, although it's hard to know because any press reports from the front lines of the GWoT are rare.  Reports of discussions with the Taliban come up every now and then.


So what are we doing?   Is the plan to aimlessly fire at moles when they pop up, as long as the moles are isolated and may not cause collateral problems, or is there an overall strategy in play?  We've been told the prez is one of the smartest men to ever hold office, so maybe it's just hard for mortals to understand.  It certainly looks like the overarching strategy is ruled more by politics than anything else, but that would surely be a racist thought.  

Family Ties

Another one of Obama's illegal alien relatives is in the news today, this time "Uncle Omar":

President Barack Obama's Kenyan-born uncle, who ignored a deportation order more than two decades ago, was granted permission to stay in the U.S. on Tuesday.

Judge Leonard Shapiro made the decision after Onyango Obama, 69, testified that he had lived in the U.S. for 50 years, been a hard worker, paid income tax and been arrested only once.

OK, no surprise there. No way were Omar or Auntie Z going to get deported with 'immigration reform' still pending.  So they simply got away with breaking US law and the President of the United States seems completely fine with it (just as he seemed fine visiting illegal aliens on hunger strikes in DC the other day).

The more interesting tidbit here is a credibility issue, not reported in the NBC piece but picked up in a WaPo "blog":

WaPo goes on to mention..

The White House said following Omar Obama's arrest that he and the president had never met. The president was not close to his father's side of the family given his father's absence in his life.

The NBC report mentions that Obama claimed to have met an Uncle Omar while on a visit to Kenya, according to "Dreams from my Father".   So what's the calculus here?

Well, Dreams was written in 1993-94.  Uncle Omar was still living in the United States at the time, having blown off deportation orders.  Obama was back from Harvard, evidently after bunking with illegal alien Omar to save cash.

So maybe Obama (or Ayers) had to lie in the book.  Then they lied again on the campaign trail.   If so these will be described to us as "noble lies", meant to protect both Obama's political future as the bringer of health care and Omar from the racist policies of xenophobic white Americans clinging to their god and guns.

The real question is whether Uncle Omar was using that little lie, ie, Obama did know him after all, as leverage against the administration to prevent deportation or whether it was something a little bigger.  Keep in mind Omar threatened to call the White House after he rammed his car into a police cruiser under the influence, as if such a call might accomplish something.  Whether that was just a drunken taunt to the police as in "do you know who you're dealing with" or a drunken taunt to the administration as in, "don't reject me or I'll spill some beans" remains unknown.  Like so many other things.

SOMEBODY SHOULD BE FIRED...AGAIN   12/6/13

So Omar spilled the beans and admitted that Obama actually roomed with him while attending Harvard back in the 90s--AFTER he had blown off two deportation orders.  Ed Henry of Fox News was the only reporter yesterday to challenge this, to which our own Baghdad Bob crafted a fiction so ridiculous and unbelievable that even a child might not attempt it..



So let's get this straight.  The president's staff is saying they responded to a question in 2011 about whether the president had ever met his Uncle Omar by not actually asking the president, rather, they did their own research, including looking through Obama's book, this despite the fact Obama's book suggests he met an Uncle Omar in Kenya.   Now they ask American adults to believe that this time they asked the big guy himself, and lo and behold!   He said 'yeah, we met'.

Yes, liberals and John McCain might say "who cares", "small potatoes", "there are bigger issues" and "all presidents lie".   But when presidents get caught lying they usually pay a price for it because it reflects on their character and represents breaking trust with the public.   That's the only reason this matters, although some might be looking for more under the rock.    

As to firings, IF this story is true (which seems about as likely as fast food workers getting 15 dollars an hour anytime soon) then the staffers who originally answered the question are incompetent and perhaps would be better served working in the fast food industry.

Obama Renders Foreign Terrorist to Secret Interrogation Chamber

The capture of Anas al-Libi was heralded over the weekend as a good "get" (it is!) but few talked about the obvious political problems inherent in such an operation (few being the same media talking heads who grilled Bush about such things).    

For instance, it appears a Delta Force team, with assistance from CIA and FBI (we are not sure which boots were actually on the ground in Libya), snatched this guy off the streets where he was apparently living free and easy like Al Bundy.   The administration is being tight-lipped other than heralding an eventual transfer to a cell in Manhattan where he will get appropriate (non Bush) justice, ignoring all inconvenient details in between because, national security.

There are still rumors and leaks though, and some suggest al-Libi is on a Navy ship somewhere in the Med discussing his life with a HIG team.  No word on when he will be Mirandized and sent to New York, but as some have said it probably won't be as long as that guy Warsame, who was also captured in Africa several years ago and then spent a considerable amount of time on a ship in the Red Sea discussing things (strictly following the Army Field Manual, of course).  To their credit the Firedogs were biotching about this, showing that some liberals practice intellectual honesty.   OK, the Paulnuts are consistent as well. 

This guy Anas is a bigger fish though, fetching a cool 5 million on the Rewards for Justice list, so it will be harder to hide the process this time, which probably means he'll be in the Big Apple soon.  No word on whether anyone is claiming the 5 mil reward. 

The administration seems to blush when asked whether al-Libi was 'rendered'--they are saying it was a military operation and he's being held and interrogated under the AUMF under US law and laws of war, so it wasn't like a Bushitler extraordinary rendition because, Obama.  And how dare anyone even ask the question! 

That's odd in contrast to the way they handle questions about Benghazi.  The State Department and White House will refer everyone to the Department of Justice/FBI for any details on how justice is being pursued, as if Ansar al-Sharia is a faction of the New Black Panthers.  When asking questions to the FBI reporters are greeted with no details because, ongoing criminal investigation. 

So with four dead Americans and a bonafide terrorist attack they keep everything rooted in the FBI; for a suspected terrorist who might not even have been operating these past few years they send in Delta Force and use the AUMF to justify stowing him away on a ship before Mirandizing him and sending him to the klink with his assigned public defender.  Because transparency.

And don't try to figure out what happens when al-Libi claims he was 'tortured' on the Navy ship or secret black site, wherever he is, before being transferred back to the FBI in New York. The answer to that question is Bush.    

Meanwhile, aside from this embarrassment, which was clearly Boehner's fault, the administration made a curious move today, designating the Muhammad Jamal group in Egypt a recognized terrorist group. Anyone associated with the EIJ should have been deemed terrorists long ago.  Not mentioned was their possible involvement in the Benghazi attack, something Thomas Joscelyn mentions here.  Hmm, maybe the administration is about to unleash those FBI agents and roll out some justice against someone other than the Mohammed filmmaker.   Just don't ask any questions about it because shut up.   

 

News about real Terrorists

No, not the extremists Obama and Reid have been blabbering about for weeks, real terrorists.  Our real enemy.  The CIA and FBI have apparently captured Anas al-Liby, who's been a permanent fixture on the Rewards for Justice site since the 90s.

Al-Liby was captured in broad daylight in Tripoli, indicating just how stable and secure that country is after Obama liberated it.  No GTMO for him, he will of course be flown back to New York for a civilian trial.  No word on whether the "HIG" team has or will interrogate him.  

Here's a blurb..

Abu Anas, 49, was born in Tripoli and is believed to have joined Bin Laden’s organization as early as the early 1990s, when it was based in Sudan. He later moved to Britain, where he had been granted political asylum. United States prosecutors in New York charged him in a 2000 indictment with helping to conduct “visual and photographic surveillance” of the United States Embassy in Nairobi in 1993 and again in 1995.

In the indictment, prosecutors said Abu Anas had discussed with another senior Qaeda figure the idea of attacking an American target in retaliation for the United States peacekeeping operation in Somalia.

He was a wanted fish and it's good we finally got him, although he wasn't a top level fish (he was among a list of 41 wanted terrorists worth 5 million for capture).  Oddly, CNN ran a story on him on September 27, claiming that he had been seen on the streets of Tripoli yet he seemed oblivious to the possibility he might get nabbed.  CNN seems to get wind of all kinds of terrorists in Libya before anyone else, although this one wasn't associated with Benghazi.  As to when he was nabbed, the Times story does not say but the CBS report claims it was today.

The bigger takeaway is Libya itself.   If indeed he was grabbed today then this dude was just walking around in the capital for weeks after being fingered by the western media, apparently oblivious to the threat. So who's running that show now anyway?   The media dropped their reporting on Libya as soon as Gaddafi was gone, and only sporadically report about the violence in Iraq after Obama ended the war.  The same will happen when we leave Afghanistan next year.  Obama has now redefined the terrorist enemy as John Boehner and the Tea Party, meanwhile the real war on terror rages on. 

As to the al-Shishkebob raid in Somalia, the SEALS might have gotten a ring leader, although the military is keeping very quiet about it so far. Interesting timing--they just released some unseen footage of the Blackhawk Down raid in Mogadishu yesterday.  Getting one guy might be satisfying but we sent lots of assets into Somalia back in 2008 in concert with Kenya and Ethiopia ground forces--now both those countries have suffered reprisal attacks.

MORE  10/6/13

Here's our apparent co-president John Kerry explaining the justice process, which apparently involves some hope-filled unicorns:

..."continue to try to bring people to justice in an appropriate way with hopes that ultimately these kinds of activities against everybody in the world will stop."

So much for AQ being decimated. And appropriate as in what? Rendition? Because it sure seems like this was a rendition. Here's CNN:

The Libyan interim government called the U.S. capture a kidnapping and has requested an explanation from Washington about the raid, the country's state news agency reported Sunday. Libya emphasized its citizens should be tried in Libya if they are facing charges, LANA reported.

That could be posturing--there was a lot of posturing by foreign governments back when Bush did rendition after 9/11, when it was evil.  Now it's cool again, as it was in the 90s when Clinton did it.  Here's a political perspective from a congressman:

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House intelligence committee, called Ruqai’s capture “a major blow against the remnants of al-Qaida’s core.” The lawmaker said Ruqai was “thought to be in Libya to help set up new cells and recruit new members.”

Will they please stop with this 'AQ core' nonsense? AQ is AQ. They say AQ Core to get them off the hook from having to deal with AQ affiliates in Iraq and Iran and those fighting with the rebels in Syria. It's stupid and political.

Still wondering about interrogation. Here's the NY Times:

American officials said they would be questioning Abu Anas for several weeks. But they did not dispute that New York, where an indictment is pending against him, was most likely his ultimate destination. 

OK, but here's a comment from the Fox News piece:

Sources told Fox News that Libi will be read his rights by an elite FBI unit that was sent out for that purpose. US officials say that the Justice Department plans to prosecute him in a U.S. court.

Since the FBI was on scene does that mean he's been read his rights already?  They must not suspect anything imminent. Or maybe they do, but they want to be "appropriate". 

Theater of the Absurd

Absurd.  That's the only thing that describes it.

We have a president whose administration likens his American political enemies to suicide bombing terrorists, yet is in negotiation with the Taliban to retreat from the country where 9/11 was launched (including allowing Pakistan to release their Number Two leader) and has just now announced a phone call with the 'president' of one of the biggest state sponsors of terror on earth.

And he does it with conviction--it's pretty obvious that he sees the Tea Party as a bigger enemy than Iran or even AQ, who he's actually helping in Syria and helped in Libya.   And what was the leader of the free world's solution to the horrific onslaught at a Jewish-owned mall in Nairobi where Americans were injured?  He will provde "whatever law enforcement support that is necessary".   As if that's working out so well to solve the Benghazi attack.  The same guy hasn't 'dismantled' the terrorists in Syria who ate a man's organs.

But the Republicans are just as disgraceful, withering like deflated clowns amongst the perceived pressure of how a government shutdown might be spun by the baby bird mainstream media, half of whom are waiting for their security clearances to join the administration.  The House is majority GOP, that's leverage.  Use it without fear.  Do what Tip O'Neil would do and go on the offensive--the debt ceiling has to stand for something, so get out there and make the point and don't let the dissembler define you.  Or, do nothing and look like bigger morons.

Glad it's Friday.       

Nairobi Islamic Terror Attack

Once again the religion nobody wants to mention is being used to justify an attack--this one in an upscale Nairobi mall.  Just civilians out for a nice day of shopping, mown down by grenades and AKs.

AQ-affiliated al-Sheebab took credit for the attack, which is still in progress as of this writing.  They have hostages.  Meanwhile our State Department has weighed in and is decrying the attack by 'violent extremists'. Even the Secretary of State will not call the spade a spade, despite the loss of a indigenous Nairobi US embassy employee in the attack:

Secretary of State John Kerry called the attack "a heartbreaking reminder that there exists unspeakable evil in our world which can destroy life in a senseless instant."

"Attacks like this can't change who we are, a people committed to peace and justice for all, but rather must reaffirm our determination to counter extremism and promote tolerance everywhere," Kerr[sic] said in a statement. "As we prepare to bring the world's leaders together at the United Nations next week, we are reminded again in tragedy of our common humanity."

So if someone has just returned from a spaceflight and didn't know the details they might think Joseph Kony had attacked the mall.  After all, he's in Africa, is also called a violent extremist, and our military is supposed to be chasing him.  Or wait, not anymore (sorry, it didn't make the headlines and had to dig).  Since he didn't identify anyone or any philosophy maybe Kerry means that some of the 'violent extremists' who attacked our embassy in Benghazi are involved.  After all, none of them have been brought to justice yet.  Or maybe he means someone like the Navy Yard shooter or Adam Lanza.  

Despite the fuzziness from Foggy Bottom the Israelis certainly know the score and have sent teams down to assist the Kenyans (the mall was Israeli-owned). One can't help but recall the infamous raid on Entebbe when discussing Africa and hostages.  Wonder if any of the Nairobi hostages are Israeli?  Whoever they are let's hope they share the same fate.

Meanwhile in Pakistan, a Christian church gets attacked on a Sunday morning, killing scores:

A suicide attack on a historic Christian church in northwestern Pakistan killed at least 75 people on Sunday in one of the deadliest attacks on the Christian minority in Pakistan in years.

The obvious culprits are Sunni terrorists.  And to think, the Pakistanis just released Mullah Baradar as an act of good faith towards these barbarian cannibalistic head-choppers. 

Which illustrates the bottom line with all of these 'violent extremists'; they must be eradicated, along with their twisted interpretation of Islam.  Kerry is correct in that our goal is perpetuate a policy of tolerance and aggressively counter extremism, and we can't kill them all, but pretending they don't exist and hoping they go away isn't much of a policy either.  The UN General Assembly next week in New York should be used to issue a call for Islamic leaders worldwide to condemn this bullshite.  That's what they would do with Israel.   

Fit to Print

Here's the Weekly Standard, noticing that the press had a shot at president Obama on the plane today and didn't ask one question about the scandals, Snowden, Syria, etc:

President Obama stopped by the press cabin on Air Force One, as the presidential plane made its way to South Africa. While there, the press had a chance to ask the president about major issues concerning Americans: the scandals, the controversial Supreme Court decisions, immigration, and many others. Instead, the press asked about Obama's Africa legacy (or lack thereof), China's relationship with Africa, the commitment of U.S. companies to Africa, and whether he'll visit the ailing Nelson Mandela.

Shortly after those puffballs cleared the cabin the press secretary, Jay Baghdad Carney, had a regular 'gaggle' with reporters and began as follows (emphasis added):

MR. CARNEY: You probably don’t have any other questions since you just spoke to the President, but Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor, joins me today and we are here to take your questions as we make our way to South Africa.

Yep, that's all anyone reporter could possibly ever ask the president these days. 

Indeed, other than a legitimate question about the immigration bill, one about HBCUs and one asking why Obama didn't take a delegation of black leaders along with him like Clinton did, here are some of the other "questions" they peppered him with:

>  Nice notepad.

>   Can you say anything about where Sasha was yesterday? Is she okay? Because we noticed she wasn’t at the events?

>   Was that really the President’s long-lost friend from Spain at the dinner last night?

>   Did the President sing?

Pathetic.  

Back to the Blind Sheikh

Reports coming out of Algeria regarding the "Battalion of Blood" hostage crisis are dropping a famous name again:

Ihab Mohamed writes: According to Mauritania's ANI news agency, which seems to be in contact with the Battalion of Blood, the terrorist group behind the hostage crisis, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the group's leader, is offering to release the American hostages in exchange for the release of Egyptian Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and Pakistani Aafia Siddiqui, who are in jail in America on terrorism charges.

Belmokhtar has recorded a video message, which he is going to send to the mass media, in which he offers the same swap and calls on the French and Algerians to negotiate an end to the war in northern Mali.

Of course the last time Abdel-Rahman's name was used in relation to current radical activity was the Cairo protests, which started out as a free-the-Sheikh rally but turned into a riot on the embassy, which was blamed on a movie clip.  Has anyone seen Nic Robertson lately?

As to Siddiqui, she's long been a cause celebre in non-moderate Muslim circles.   

Government officials are saying this raid was planned well before the French began attacking AQ positions in Mali, as if to suggest Belmoktar is exploiting news events now that he's pinned down but the initial raid was just a hostage-ransom operation.  Wouldn't be the first time.

But does anyone really believe that?  This was a high-profile, large raid, conducted after the French began their operation and one they had to know would provide a lot of visibility.  What difference does it make when it was planned?  Besides, it's not as if the French--and the US--just woke up last week and noticed AQIM was actively trying to overthrow Mali and exert influence in other African territory.

So we'll see how the various officials describe the event going forward.  Recent history suggests they may try to claim it was just an over-zealous ransom operation gone awry, which would fit with the other African blowup explanations, ie, Cairo was just an out-of-control protest about a hateful movie and Benghazi was just, well, the FBI is still investigating so they can't say but anyone who questions why Hillary and Susan Rice ran a cover story on it are probably imbeciles.  

UPDATE  1/18/13

The level of silence from the US administration is in some ways understandable with hostages still in harm's way.  However, other leaders aren't playing it as safe, feeling the need to update their population on breaking events despite having nationals still involved..



Yesterday Jay Carney told the media it was 'premature' to ask whether Algeria consulted with US officials before their rescue attack, something British PM Cameron seemed to have no trouble clarifying above.  This silence torqued at least one reporter, the AP's Matt Lee, who normally covers State (and was quite animated in that briefing later).   Today the White House didn't see fit to have a press briefing about any of this. The State spokesperson wouldn't provide much if any details.  Later Hillary appeared with the Japanese foreign minister and gave a statement and took one question but refused to provide the level of detail covered by PM Cameron.   For whatever it's worth.  More are paying attention to the Manti scandal (which is admittedly weirder).  

Aviation Update

Brutal, two accidents involving Nigerian aircraft this past weekend, killing over 170 people.  Related?

Early speculation would say no.  The Allied Air 727-200 that overshot the runway on a scheduled cargo flight from Lagos to Accra, Ghana, was by all reports landing during intermittent thunderstorms.  The runway was long--over 11,000 feet--plenty of stopping room for a 727 (can handle less than half that length under normal conditions).  The crew is still alive so they'll have a lot to work with in completing an investigation.

The Dana Air flight 992 MD83 crash at Lagos Sunday appears more complicated.  Weather conditions were reportedly benign. Initial reports say pilots radioed they were having engine trouble on final approach and the aircraft struck the ground about 5 miles short of the runway.  

Reports vary; some today put the accident site 11 miles from the airport--this one says 4 miles.  The confusion probably comes from the fact the crew reported Mayday 11 miles out, allegedly reporting a loss of power of both engines.  This kind of confusion is common in crashes, especially in the third world.  Here's a local media report heralding fresh information that says the plane actually took off from Lagos and was trying to return to the airport, which has already been eclipsed by events.

Pictures from the scene indicate the tailplane of the MD83 remained relatively intact, to the point where locals were walking across the horizontal stabilizer taking cellphone pictures.  An AFP video features a witness who described the aircraft wobbling as it descended.  This, along with other witness accounts saying the aircraft impacted the ground with a nose-up attitude suggests the plane didn't drop out of the sky but was stalling while proceeding laterally. 

So far no witnesses have mentioned the aircraft being on fire before colliding with the ground, which seems to work against a terrorist missile or bomb.  Such a crash would likely have occurred in Detroit had Abdulmuttalob been successful in igniting his underwear but the difference here is the Mayday call; onboard bombs tend to be catastrophic. Nigeria is home to AQ faction Boko Haram  and they've taken credit for an attack on a Christian church Sunday in northern Nigeria killing at least 12, but so far no terrorists have claimed responsibility for flight 992.  Not that their silence lessens the overall fears.

Both the CVR and FDR have been found, which will go a long way towards solving the mystery--if the mystery is allowed to be solved.  Boeing has dispatched some personnel working through the NTSB so the right players are in position for an honest and thorough investigation.  It won't take away the grief, but a real inquest may save more grief for others down the line.

Revenge of the Shadows

Amongst the steady stream of dead bin Laden stories comes one today from the AP detailing the secret lives of two CIA operatives killed in the African Embassy bombings in Kenya in 1998:

For a small cadre of CIA veterans, the death of Osama bin Laden was more than just a national moment of relief and closure. It was also a measure of payback, a settling of a score for a pair of deaths, the details of which have remained a secret for 13 years.

Tom Shah and Molly Huckaby Hardy were among the 44 U.S. Embassy employees killed when a truck bomb exploded outside the embassy compound in Kenya in 1998. Though it has never been publicly acknowledged, the two were working undercover for the CIA. In al-Qaida's war on the United States, they are believed to be the first CIA casualties.

Since everyone knows that clandestine CIA officers are usually called "State Dept employees" when posted overseas this story isn't giving away anything, nevertheless it still has an unseemly feel about it. Bin Laden was no dummy--the story claims he was aware the embassy in Nairobi was a CIA hub, evidently a reason he chose it..

Bin Laden said the embassy in Nairobi was targeted because it was a major CIA station. He died never knowing that he had killed two CIA officers there.

He also knew the CIA would never publicly acknowledge the deaths of any agents under cover of the State Dept, so he likely assumed he'd killed a number of agents. After all, as some on the left proclaimed while Bush was in office, bin Laden had a history with the CIA dating back to the Soviet jihad in the 80s. He was practically on the payroll. Granted, such speculation has now died off in the clamor to give Obama full credit for killing the bogeyman but for some, things will never change.

The story goes on to say that Shah was working a sensitive mission before he was murdered by AQ--facilitating the defection of a "senior Iraqi official":

In 1997, he was dispatched to headquarters as part of the Iraq Operations Group, the CIA team that ran spying campaigns against Saddam Hussein's regime. Around that time, the CIA became convinced that a senior Iraqi official was willing to provide intelligence in exchange for a new life in America. Before the U.S. could make that deal, it had to be sure the information was credible and the would-be defector wasn't really a double agent. But even talking to him was a risky move. If a meeting with the CIA was discovered, the Iraqi would be killed for sure.

The CIA followed up and got the Iraqi defected, his information deemed 'extremely valuable'. And just what would that have been? That Saddam had no WMDs? That he DID have programs? That he worked for Halliburton or George Bush? Will anyone bother to ask about this defector or will it get swept away under the fog of the next bin Laden/gutsy call release? Or did they merely want people to guess?

Keep in mind the Nairobi bombing was in 1998. Clinton responded in part by bombing the aspirin factory in Khartoum, suspecting it was a joint bin Laden-Iraqi venture making VX nerve gas. Many Clinton officials have never come down off that assessment but then again, the mainstream media by and large hasn't had enough curiosity to ask them much about it.

Ironically, the CIA also had a history in Iraq:

When Saddam Hussein captured Erbil in September 1996, he also collapsed the CIA operations headquartered in the city of Salahuddin. The CIA effort was carried out by collaborating with such Iraqi opposition groups as the Iraqi National Congress (INC) in Erbil, and later the Iraqi National Accord headquartered in Amman, Jordan.

So perhaps the question is whether the deaths of these heroic shadow warriors might have also been avenged of sorts by Saddam dangling at the end of his rope.

Nigeria Wants Cheney

And the left is about to have a field day..

If Nigeria has its way, former Vice President Dick Cheney will be next on Interpol's international "wanted" alert, for bribery charges related to his time as the CEO of Halliburton.

Nigeria's anti-corruption agency says it plans to file charges against Cheney in connection with $180 million in bribes a Halliburton subsidiary paid to Nigerian officials to help secure a $1.2 billion contract during his tenure as head of the company. "We are filing charges against Cheney," Femi Babafemi, the country's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission chief, told Reuters today.

But not so fast, says this site:

Political implications of arresting a former vice president aside, Obama and company are presented with two choices.

First, it can ignore the warrant, thereby straining relations with resource-rich Nigeria, and also undercut its current leadership role in Interpol, which is currently headed by American Ronald Noble, who worked for the Treasury Department during Bill Clinton’s presidential tenure.

The second option: move forward and nab Cheney. This would only inflame the right wing, though, and not simply because of revered Cheney’s elevated status among the conservative set.

Imagine Obama pressing the arrest of Assange, current target of an Interpol Red Notice, while not directing Holder to arrest Darth heart patient. Or vice versa. All while the lame duck Dems bicker over tax increases and the stock market prepares to crash over the coming taxmageddon. Get the popcorn ready, folks..

Kampala Bombing

The 7/11 bombings in Uganda were a bit of an overreaction to the sport of soccer but that's the hallmark of AQ--don't like it, kill it. That's why we continue to fight. That's why we're still in Afghanistan so crackpots like that cannot run anything.

So it's not surprising that al-Shabab, the Somali-based wing of their big cave brothers, has taken credit for the attack. Even if they didn't do it they still heartily approve, because it's so them.

But should America care? This was Uganda after all, home to the notorious former dictator Idi Amin and famous for almost nothing else.

The only troubling thing seems to be the cross-border nature, if indeed al-Shabab was involved. The US has a decent-sized Somali population and a few were recently arrested for wanting to join the jihad in the horn of Africa, similar to last year. Uganda is an ally and has been providing the bulk of troops to the African Union force trying to keep peace in Mogadishu, with the US providing a bulk of the support for that army. Meanwhile, Ethiopia, Kenya, Burundi have also taken our side in the fight against Somalian Sharia.

Maybe nothing, but the targeted sports bar was 'Ethiopian themed'. Earlier this year an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 exploded after takeoff from Beirut's Harari Airport, blamed initially on weather until the story completely disappeared. No official cause released yet, but a few months ago a captured member of AQ claimed the plane was brought down with an underwear bomb:

News reports from Saudi Arabia say the recently arrested terrorism suspects were part of a network of al-Qaida-affiliated radicals that included two suicide bombing cells.

Mahboub Maalim, head of the six-nation East African regional economic group known as IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development), says al-Qaida-linked terror cells in the Arabian Peninsula are working with like-minded groups in the Horn of Africa.

“We’re almost certain in Somalia the group al-Shabab is not a Somali group any more, and we think a lot of other nationalities are there in the name of that cell, the al-Qaida cell, and definitely we feel there is also a link with the group in Yemen,” note Maalim.

The underbomber himself was from Africa, Nigeria to be exact, and had trained in Yemen. Places like Darfur have not suddenly become Shangli-la since George Werner Bushitler became a private citizen in Dallas just because the media and Hollywood stopped caring; it's still flaring. And the reason has always been the brutal targeting of non-Islamic peoples by the Islamic regime in Khartoum. Funny, they sent Milosevic to the World Court for that kind of stuff. So this most recent event in east Africa just adds to a not very promising common theme.

In other news, the TSA is now asking Congress for more funds to upgrade their bomb-sniffing dog fleet. This has been done before, immediately after a spark caused the explosion of a fuel tank in a 747, a case in which a bomb sniffing dog actually saved the entire narrative without sniffing anything at all. Perhaps a bomb sniffing dog would have found the bomb on Abdulmichlob assuming it wasn't masked by more pungent odors. Meanwhile back in Africa, Kenya was the scene of the last known attempt to bring down a commercial aircraft (El Al). One of the perps in that attack was also likely involved in the Embassy bombings, a thug from the island of Comoros, site of another unsolved airliner crash. Not that it means anything necessarily.

MORE 7/13/10

CNN has more, including this:

In March, the New York Times reported that the U.S. had become so concerned with the group's activities across Somalia and in Yemen, across the Gulf of Aden, that they were giving direct military support to the TFG. This was strongly denied in Washington.