Investigation Update

Remember the case of the leaked information on the Stuxnet virus designed to degrade Iran's nuclear program? You're not alone--the media seems to have forgotten as well, along with most of the conservative blogosphere.

At last check Obama's "favorite general" Hoss Cartwright was the person of interest, but the Washington Post told us that the investigation had been delayed so as not to interfere with Obama's super-awesome peace-in-our-time nookular deal with the Ayatollahs.

After Ben Rhodes gleefully admitted that they successfully lied their way into that deal, one might think the door would be open to prosecute the Stuxnet leakers because the current administration has taken a scorched earth policy on such things.  And....as everybody was just recently made aware, even joking about leaking can be considered treasonous!

So..... how is the investigation coming along?

And by the way, speaking of generals...

Meaning of the word 'is' again

History repeats.  That's basically what the Clintons are doing on this email scandal, same playbook as Monica.   Define an issue down to legal terms, use legal parsing to craft disingenuous replies, then look in the camera with the best serious face and blame a vast right wing conspiracy.

Can't blame them, it worked before, largely with the same breed of media.  Even tonight one of Clinton's main flacks was on Megyn Kelly's show defending the indefensible, and with vigor and gusto. It's all they've got.  But with a helpful (or even lackadaisical) media not riling up the muddy middle swing voters with saturation coverage, it's not beyond succeeding. 

Meanwhile, getting to wherever we're going on this is already an exercise in the bizarre.  Hillary likes to say she never 'sent or received email that was classified at the time'.  She also likes to say that no organization is too big to fail and no person is too big to jail.  She even said some of this wearing black and white striped pants suits.  Does she even get the irony there?   Or is she just rubbing it in?
 
She is the smartest woman in the world, after all.

Back in reality where chief gumshoe James Comey works (he of Ashcroft hospital drama fame) the stakes are high.  Comey has a legacy as a straight shooter and lefty hero for challenging the evil, constitution crapping imperial president Bushco, but he's got some new cards to play now. Will he play them fairly?  If he recommends indictment and Lynch blows it off, will he resign out of protest?  Or will he see the lucrative FBI position, stretching well into the next president's tenure, as something to protect and serve?  Cough, "I did all I could", sigh, let's move on to ISIS.  No protest leaves the media wide open to carry Hillary's water all the way to the next set of Roman columns. 

My guess is Comey won't fizzle out on principle and we may see something sooner than later.  The more the FBI drags this out the more primary wins Hillary can accumulate, then claim that any FBI investigation is purely partisan and interfering with a national election. There would be some precedence in that, too.  So maybe we'll see something this weekend. 

MORE  1/31/16

The something we saw this weekend was nothing.  So, it appears the FBI is going to let the voters caucus on Monday and beyond before taking any action.  

So here's more wild speculation.  After she's won a primary or three, if FBI moves to indict her the campaign will throw up a flag and cry foul, claiming the FBI is trying to impede an election.   When the right reacts as they predictably will (loud and boisterous) the Clinton machine will attack them as making a phony scandal out of an honest 'mistake'.   That's probably where the press will kick into top gear on the story, jumping in with the historic Mrs Rodham Clinton's campaign, helping her douse the fire before moving the rubes on to other preferred narratives, like the war on women.  It would help is some big breaking story came along to feed that, but surely one can be arranged.

Meanwhile the GOP will wither under the attacks and demand people 'move on' to the substantive issues facing the country, etc etc.

The only wildcard in that scenario is Trump.      

Investigation Update

With all the hoopla over Hillary's emails and Obama's Iran deal, one story has completely been buried--the Stuxnet leak on Iran. Back when Holder was holding fort at DOJ he promised to get to the bottom of a leak about Stuxnet to the New York Times, appointing US Attorney for Maryland Rod Rosenstein to handle the case.

This was way back in 2012--the leak was basically in support of Obama's reelection campaign. Dribs and drabs of information would occasionally bubble out over the years, but in small quantities. Few cared.

Eventually in 2013 we were told the prime person of interest was "Obama's favorite general" retired 4 star Hoss Cartwright. Indeed he was. But then the story went cold again.

Then just recently we learned that Cartwight's case was more or less put on hold because it could have potentially interfered with the peace in our time Iran nuke deal.  Who made that call, by the way?   Obama has said the Attoney General's office is completely independent. 

The president has also bragged about his administration's severe handling of leakers and those who violate their security oaths. Lower level people have been sent to jail. The Defense Department is contemplating a move to reduce the rank of General Petraeus ex post facto. But we have Cartwright's case still in limbo? Did he leak or not? The Iran deal is done, where's the update?

If it was a bomb...

The determination of what brought down Metrojet 7K-9268  has not yet been made, but everyone has seen the leaks coming from western intelligence pointing to a bomb.   So let's assume for a moment it was a bomb.

And let's assume it was planted by an operator on behalf of ISIS, due to the Russian connection.

Who might be the mastermind?   We know AQ has some good bombmakers.  AQAP's al-Asiri is notorious and a highly sought after drone target.  We know of bombmakers in the Khorasan Group in Syria (otherwise known as Core AQ).  One was reportedly just killed.   But we haven't heard of many bombmaker geniuses populating the ranks of ISIS.

What about this guy?    He's a little old, yes, but passing knowledge would be his main contribution.  He's a long-time resident of Iraq, still wanted years after creating a bomb that was placed on a Pan Am 747 flying to Honolulu in 1982.  At the time he was also working on a plot to bomb multiple aircraft before the plot was fortunately foiled.  This was years before the Yousef/KSM "Bojinka" plot was uncovered.   The Saddam government likely knew about this activity and looked the other way meaning they sanctioned it, for what it's worth. 

Ironically, ISIS is filled with ex-Saddamists.  Al-Umari is a Sunni loyalist, no doubt.  Many of the ex-Saddamists have taught their jihadist partners a few tricks of their former terror trade, which has resulted in a new, improved terrorist army featuring many of the same enemies Saddam had.  The only difference is the new group wears religious hats and dons beards.  

So it sounds reasonable to assume he might be working with them now if he's still active in the game.  At any rate, the United States has put up 5 million bucks in an effort to get this old man off the Arab streets, so they must have a good reason.   

MORE  11/9/15

One thing to note.  It's a bit strange how quickly and adamantly that "unnamed US security officials" have declared this a bomb.  Here's yet another story.  Even in the story the officials claim they are not directly involved in the investigation.  Others say they have terrorist chatter in the NSA intercepts, but that's something they will never release due to security.   Compare all that to the other mysterious aircraft crashes over the past 20 years, wherein officials went out of their way to deny terrorism was even possible.   Obviously a political component needs to be suspected.   This still could have been a mechanical issue.    

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.  

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. 

22 Years Ago Today...

...the War on Terror, as we know it, began. Few realized it at the time, especially when the Waco standoff started only days later and stretched out for 2 months. Several years later a Kuwaiti-born Muslim, Abdul Basit Karim, aka Ramzi Yousef, was convicted of the crime and sent to the federal Supermax prison in Colorado for life, to be forgotten. He had acquired his bomb-making skills via higher education in Britain.


So what do we really know about that attack? Here's a summary at the time...

 

It's amazing that 1) the FBI knew of the bombing plot but pulled out their agent, 2) afterwards a mysterious master bomb-maker shows up along with an Iraqi and the plot gets pushed to a new level, as if they'd been tipped. There was no 2/26 Commission, mainly because Bill Clinton was president. There wasn't a full investigation of the 1993 attack by the 9/11 Commission, mainly because Bill Clinton still had dreams of returning to the White House for a third term via his wife. Without extreme public scrutiny and/or the retirement of the Clintons, the truth will not be coming out.

Meanwhile, two decades later another Kuwaiti-born Muslim, also schooled in Britain, is suspected of being the guy waving the knife at the West in videos before cutting the head off another helpless victim as he represents a Jihadist organization Ramzi Yousef could only dream of.   Pretending he only needed a job or that Bush lied or that the Crusades prompted him to sharpen his knife is just a pitiful reminder of where we stand in this fight. 

Al-Marri Free

Ali Saleh al-Marri was once a trusted sleeper for the enemy of the United States of America.  He entered the country before 9/11 on a student Visa and used the web to research cyanide along with locations of dams, waterways and tunnels.  By the way, for those who think researching dams isn't a big deal anymore, refer to this case.

He was picked up in December 2001 and later named an enemy combatant by the Bush torturers. ACLU types eventually got him into the criminal system and in the first year of the Obama administration a federal judge sentenced him to 8 years and time served (in the Bushco gulags).  Using the new math that means he's now free as a bird, back home in Qatar (pronounced gutter).

In 2009 the AP's Pamela Hess reported on his previous life as follows:

After arriving in the U.S. on Sept. 10, 2001, a day before al-Qaida's long-plotted terror strikes in New York and Washington, Al-Marri stored phone numbers of al-Qaida associates in a personal electronic device.

He used a "10-code" to protect the numbers, subtracting the actual digits in the phone numbers from 10 to arrive at a coded number, according to a person close to the investigation. In a 10-code, eight becomes a two, for example. Other al-Qaida members used the same code, according to the plea agreement.

Al-Marri sent e-mails to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's hotmail account, HOR70@hotmail.com, addressed to "Muk" and signed "Abdo." The details of that code were included in an address book found in an al-Qaida safehouse in Pakistan.

An attempt by The Associated Press to reach that address did not indicate the account had been closed, but it went unanswered. Al-Marri initially tried to use a Yahoo e-mail account to contact Mohammed, but it failed to go through. So he switched to Hotmail as well.

When al-Marri arrived in the United States, he created five new e-mail accounts to communicate with Mohammed, using the 10-code to send him his cell phone number in Peoria. From September to November, al-Marri tried and failed to contact members of al-Qaida in Pakistan using prepaid calling cards and public phones, sometimes traveling 160 miles to use a different phone.

While he might seem more bumbler than Bond, he spent 3 years training in terror camps to pull off an attack and use codes, then entered the States content on helping facilitate an attack--after 9/11.  The History Commons site has a lot of information on al-Marri's alleged infractions, including a comment made about him by KSM..

He will describe al-Marri as “the perfect sleeper agent because he has studied in the United States, had no criminal record, and had a family with whom he could travel.”

After being picked up he cried a lot about missing that family while apologizing and renouncing violence because Islam is a peaceful religion, which tends to sway the squishies who consider Bush-Cheney the real terrorists.  So now, only a week or so after Paris, he's back in the Middle East, no harm, no foul.  For those who continue to wonder about the Obama doctrine, this is basically it. 

Petraeus did what?

This Fox News story on Benghazi is perplexing.  Catherine Herridge, who has done yeoman's work on the story from day one, is reporting that certain House members are claiming CIA Director David Petraeus sold them a bill of goods in closed testimony in the days immediately after the attack..

Newly declassified testimony shows at least five Republican lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee suggested former CIA Director David Petraeus provided bad information, or even misled them, after the 2012 Benghazi attack when he blamed an obscure Internet video and downplayed the significance of mortar attacks that night.

Very interesting. Why?  Because the previous narrative was that Petraeus was speaking truth to power in front of Congress on the matter.   Not only that, but the highly contested "CIA talking points" formulated ahead of UN Ambassador Rice's TV blitz on the Sunday talk shows indicated some displeasure from the Director because...

Petraeus was, according to Hayes, shocked to see references to “al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists” etc. mysteriously gone from the rewritten talking points. Which we already knew, kinda sorta, based on what Peter King revealed about Petraeus’s closed-doors testimony to the House Intelligence Committee last November.

Now suddenly we find out Peter King is saying he thinks the general was deceiving them?  And Mike Rogers is saying he wasn't straight with them, the same Mike Rogers who was the first to say it was a planned attack not a response to a You Tube clip?  Somewhere along the way the same guy decided it wasn't worth pursuing anymore and authored a dismissive report he knew the left-media would seize to make the GOP look like a pack of nutty conspiracists. 

Meanwhile it's still a mystery as to why General Petraeus suddenly disappeared into the ether following his initial involvement.  Maybe it has something to do with his subsequent shameful departure from CIA as the president won reelection.  Somehow his Deputy Mike Morell took over as the face of the event after the first week, the same guy who told Congress he didn't know who changed the talking points after he'd changed them.  He subsequently bailed out and landed a cushy consulting job with ex-Hillary staffers.

As Sharyl Attkisson asked in her book, it's logical to ask whether Petraeus was compromised at the time due to the investigation into his extra-marital affair.  As of 9/11/12, it appears the FBI knew about the affair, as did Eric Holder (former congressman Eric Cantor was informed by an FBI agent in October). Who else knew during the week after the attack?  Maybe Trey Gowdy will stumble across something, if they let him.

While we wait it's worth pointing out that the State Department was weirdly mum when asked about this report the other day (emphasis added):

Abd al-Baset Azzouz, the alleged leader of al-Qaida in Libya accused of involvement in the 2012 murder of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, was captured in Turkey, according to media reports. A Turkish daily reported that Azzouz, an al-Qaida operative who allegedly headed the terrorist organization's Libya branch, and was involved in the murder of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens in a raid on the embassy in 2012, was arrested two weeks ago and extradited to the U.S.

Damn!  Well, there's some disagreement on where he was taken, but why would the administration miss an opportunity to trumpet the capture of another Benghazi suspect?  Hmm, could it be this..

The suspect, also known as Abdulbasit Azuz, was designated a "global terrorist" in September by the U.S. State Department. The department said in a notice that Azzouz "committed or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States." British media outlets have reported that he oversaw hundreds of al-Qaida recruits at a training camp in eastern Libya. Eastern Libya is a nexus of training grounds for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which splintered from al-Qaida, according to David Rodriguez, head of U.S. Africa Command.

As stated over and over on this blog--ISIS (AQI) fighters were involved in Benghazi at the same time we were aiding them to fight Assad in Syria, before they got out control and started lopping off heads.  So it's a little inconvenient to admit that this recent capture was sent to Libya in 2011 to start an AQ cell, which turned into an attack on our embassy.  But yeah, for the most part this Benghazi stuff is just a phony scandal that has been officially dismissed by the Rogers report. We must get back to the national conversation on race, which became important after the mid-terms. 

Comey Interview

60 Minutes interviewed the Director of the FBI tonight, James Comey.   For those who've forgotten or never knew, Comey was Deputy Attorney General under Ashcroft in the Bush 43 administration and got semi-famous in the "Ashcroft Hospital Drama".

Perhaps the biggest bombshell of the interview was his mention of Khorasan, aka al-Nusra, aka Core Al Qaeda, suggesting an attack might be coming.   Which means the US didn't bomb them away a few weeks ago.  What he didn't say was the precise method of attack, probably through the air and possibly involving toothpaste if other reporting can be believed.  It's funny watching the administration scaring folks in this area while at the same time suggesting the threat from Ebola-infected fliers is zero. 

Anyway, the funniest moment was when he was discussing domestic "lone wolf" jihadists.  Comey said "lone wolf" was too good a description for them, preferring "lone rat".  Nice--especially to see the look on Scott Pelley's face.

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. 

Clinton to Berger on bin Laden

Gotta watch the stuff trickling out of the Bubba R Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock.  On a Friday doc dump the library released a handwritten note from the first black president to Sandy 'socks' Berger, his national security advisor at the time, expressing doubt about some intelligence on bin Laden.

The note was written several months after Clinton bombed some tents in Khost Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in the Sudan (1998), which prompted charges he was 'wagging the dog' to remove attention from Monicagate. 

For those who've forgotten, Clinton bombed the plant based on CIA evidence of traces of EMPTA in the ground outside the plant, a substance related to the processing of VX nerve gas.  What most of the mainstream press reports are conveniently ignoring is that the Clinton crew thought Saddam's WMD scientists were involved in helping bin Laden produce this chemical.

So here's the note:

What does it suggest?  And why were they unafraid to release it?  At the same time, they were afraid to release any part of the internal communications between Berger and colleagues Dan Benjamin and Richard Clarke in response--national security.

Well, since Clinton was referencing a NY Times article in 1999 it's useful to understand what Times writer Tim Weiner was saying:

The interviews also raise questions about key assertions that have been made by the Government about Mr. bin Laden. Senior intelligence officials concede that their knowledge of him is sketchy. ''We can't say for sure what was going on'' with him from 1991 to 1996 -- most of the years covered in the indictment -- one senior official said.

His Affluence Seems Overstated Present and former American officials and former business associates of Mr. bin Laden say he appears to control only a fraction of the $250 million fortune that the American Government says he possesses. ''Clearly, his money's running out,'' said Frank Anderson, a former senior Central Intelligence Agency official who maintains close Middle Eastern contacts.

Larry Johnson, the State Department deputy counterterrorism director from 1988 to 1993, said Administration officials had ''tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a Superman in Muslim garb -- he's 10 feet tall, he's everywhere, he knows everything, he's got lots of money and he can't be challenged.''

Milton Bearden, a retired senior C.I.A. official who ran the agency's war in Afghanistan and retired in 1995, said the Government had ''created a North Star'' in Mr. bin Laden. ''He is public enemy No. 1,'' Mr. Bearden said. ''We've got a $5 million reward out for his head. And now we have, with I'm not sure what evidence, linked him to all of the terrorist acts of this year -- of this decade, perhaps.''

In other words, anonymous CIA and Justice people were telling the Times the legal case against UBL wasn't solid while former high profile intelligence people were downplaying his role.  At the same time Vince Cannistraro, another former intel guy, was telling ABC News that bin Laden might be teaming up with Saddam, while also allegedly telling lawyer Stephen Jones of Oklahoma City bombing fame that the government didn't want any foreign suspects in that case.  Richard Clarke, who was part of the communication with Berger on this event, once famously said UBL might 'boogie to Baghdad' if they missed getting him in Afghanistan.  No wonder Slick was confused.

The key phrase is obviously, "..the CIA sure overstated its case to me..".  So what 'case' does he suspect was being overstated?  This was after a PDB in December 1998 warning of al Qaeda hijacking an airplane to secure the release of members of the 1993 WTC attack and after the embassy attacks, so it's not like terrorism itself was being overstated, just the role of the players involved.

Reporters are assuming he meant CIA was overstating the importance of bin Laden but it's valid to wonder whether Clinton might have been asking a broader question--if UBL is not the 'north star' the CIA claims, who is?   It's hard to imagine how one New York Times article could prompt doubt about terrorism in general, Clinton seemed to be confused on the role of one guy in the nexus--bin Laden.

And that goes directly to the response, which was completely redacted. Keep in mind Clarke and Benjamin have never come off the intelligence that led them to recommend bombing al-Shifa and few if any in the press have grilled them about it.  Returning to Tom Joscelyn's link above..

"The consistent stream of intelligence at that time said it wasn't just al-Shifa. There were three different structures in the Sudan. There was the hiring of Iraqis. There was no question that the Iraqis were there. Some of the Clinton people seem to forget that they did make the Iraqi connection."

So Clinton was questioning the CIA's assessment of UBL, at least in private, while his own team was indicting UBL and making links between him and Saddam Hussein.  As late as 1999. 

Yet when Clinton gave Fox an interview in 2006 (where he wagged his finger at Chris Matthews), he seemed to be saying he did more than anyone to stop bin Laden:

CLINTON: All I'm saying is, you falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew Al Qaeda existed then. And ...

WALLACE: But did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the U.S.? Did they know in 1998 ...

CLINTON: Absolutely, they did.

WALLACE: ... when he bombed the two embassies?

CLINTON: And who talked about ...

WALLACE: Did they know in 2000 when he hit the Cole?

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq.

Pretty feisty, but he admits his counterterrorism team knew about the threat from bin Laden in 1996, three years prior to the note.  Evidently he was still wavering in 1999.

But in the same interview he also told Wallace that neither the CIA nor FBI would 'cerfify' that UBL was behind the attacks, which supports the wishy-washy narrative and provides him some cover despite the CIA setting up a special office in 1996 to track UBL headed by Michael Scheuer (who has been very critical of the Clinton team on apprehending or killing bin Laden in the late 90s).  

It also ignores the aforementioned indictment of UBL in 1998 (mentioning a tie to Iraq then updated to remove ties) and KSM.  Yet here's Slick still questioning the CIA's assessment of UBL's role in global terror in 1999.  Strange.

Could it impact Hillary! 2016?  Only if anyone asks.  Clintonistas might reply that it shows Bill was solidly focused on terrorism but wasn't sure about the intelligence on UBL due to some wishy-washyness at the CIA. Here's a comedic example of how an international news site handled it:

In one file referencing bin Laden, Clinton urgently asked his top national security aide whether the CIA overstated the involvement of the terrorist leader in the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Yes that's it, an 'urgent' Clinton was seeking 'extra' information in his quest for the terror leader. By the way, the indictment was in 1998 as indicated above in this post, not after April 1999 as in the story.  Now here's a biased domestic site:

...

Wait, there's very little coverage in the mainstream press other than a stock AP story.   Which by the way is the one quoted above in the international news site.  The Washington Post ran that stock AP story.  The New York Times, itself mentioned in the release, ran an in-house version of the story that said less than AP.  Did the AP intentionally report the indictment as after the note?   Moving it makes it appear Slick was more engaged or even indicted UBL based on the redacted reply from Berger.  Reality makes him look confused and less engaged.  Josh Gerstein explains as well.   

Aides, if anyone asks, may also argue the note explains his cruise missile flop in 1998, ie, it wasn't wagging the dog, it was the CIA overstating the case--or in other words, he was wondering if he was on the right target or whether someone else was running the terror show.   Those goofballs at CIA!   They could then claim that the response from Berger to Clinton, which nobody in public is allowed to see but they know, but can only summarize in general, was that no, the CIA did not overstate the status of UBL, he was still the top dog.  And Clinton, with his question answered, strapped on his cape and pressed forward in his relentless war against bin Laden, unlike Bush who "ignored" his own August 2001 PDB (heavily covered by the press for some reason) that led to 9/11.  They always have a ready answer that satisfies the baby bird press.

Perhaps more interesting than all the finger pointing and blame shifting is the reminder in the 1999 Times story of anniversaries.  The African embassy bombings of 1998 occurred exactly 8 years to the day after US forces entered Saudi Arabia to begin Operation Desert Shield to protect that country from Saddam's forces in Kuwait.  Add to that, in February 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed on the anniversary of the day celebrated in Kuwait as 'liberation day' (2/26/91) from Saddam's forces, and September 11, 1990 was the day when president George HW Bush first called for a "New World Order" in a speech declaring that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait would not stand.  Even this past week the shoot-down of MH17 occurred on the 18th anniversary of TWA800, although the CIA said there was "not a missile" involved in that one. Terrorists do love their anniversaries.   And yes, this post is too long. Nobody cares anymore. 

Dana Milbank on Khattalah-- huh?

Although Dana Milbank was a regular on Olbermann's show he's not the worst partisan hack in the mainstream media fish pond.  He'll occasionally see a light and call a spade a spade. But his column today on Abu Khattalah is head-scratching. First, the headline:

Benghazi suspect Abu Khattala’s hearing shows merits of civilian courts

OK, so somehow bringing the terrorist to court has merit.  But searching the piece turns up little in the way of any merits.  Milbank rambles on about some courtroom audio problems then drops what apparently was supposed to be a merit:

The accused could see that he was represented by a legal team — Peterson and her assistant, also a woman — that vigorously challenged the government’s case. He could hear the judge making sure he understood his rights, and prosecutors assuring the judge they would share the evidence against Abu Khattala with the defense.

As important, the world could see (or learn from those in the courtroom, broadcasting via five satellite trucks parked outside the courthouse) that the prisoner was treated with dignity: He sat unshackled, and, through his lawyer, he entered a request for a halal diet and an Arabic-language Koran.

Do you see the mistake?  Yes, none of this means diddly squat.  Terrorists do not care about civil society.  It really doesn't matter to them if we try them via a criminal court or a military tribunal or blow them away with a drone or a tank--it's all for Allah anyway.  And quite obviously we and they both know a jury is never going to find them innocent and let them walk out the front door leaving them, as Bill Ayers once said, 'free as a bird'.

When Ramzi Yousef was caught in a rendition in Pakistan in 1995 and charged for the first World Trade Center attack and Operation Bojinka he wasn't harshly interrogated by the FBI on the way home.  It's questionable as to just how much he was interrogated at all before going to jail.  Think about that--he's the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11.  Bojinka was a plot to bomb 11 airliners.  We had him in our grasp but somehow didn't find out anything of substance about al Qaeda or any of the other Islamist cells and where they were planning the next mass murder attack.  Later the Khobar Towers and USS Cole attacks occurred, leading to 9/11.  But the terrorist was tried in federal court! 

The Clinton folks treated him like John Dillinger.  Eric Holder came in the Justice Department during Yousef's trials and he seems to have learned nothing in 20 years, nor has Milbank.  They evidently don't understand the enemy or are suffering from delusions.

During the trial Yousef tried to make a mockery of our criminal justice system, acting as his own attorney and doing the occasional outburst.  When he was found guilty this is what he said:

The Government in its summations and opening statement said that I was a terrorist. Yes, I am a terrorist and I am proud of it. And I support terrorism so long as it was against the United States Government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites.

Megyn Kelly should have asked Bill Ayers whether he agreed with that statement or not.  Fast forward to now, Barack Obama will not hesitate to drone people in remote areas with no media coverage but at the same time seems to believe we are sending someone a powerful message by trying Abu Khattala or Anas al-Libi or even KSM in federal court.

Surely they know that people who think and operate like AQ jihadists are the strong horses of the world--the barbarians--and nothing affects them.  So this is being done for who--the rest of the world?  Milbank seems to think Abu Khattalah should be impressed.  But in reality the target audience only sees the death and destruction while those under the terrorist thumb are too busy trying to keep their necks intact to be impressed by audio troubles in a New York courtroom.

ISIS is showing the world an example of that concept now.  Would John Kerry ever call for a meeting of all parties in the ISIS conflict so everyone could sit down with folded napkins and crystal glassware to discuss 'the way forward' over a 'range of issues'?  Not a chance.  He'd be too scared of getting shot or having his head end up in the fruit bowl.

Groups like ISIS or AQ must be eradicated, period.  A hashtag won't stop them from kidnapping girls.  Thinking it will, or that a criminal court proceeding will change hearts and minds is dangerous--especially for those in positions of leadership.  "Know thine enemy" is an old saying.  Milbank and those who think this way should brush up on the history of this war.  Those that have and even those who've only partially paid attention know instinctively that keeping the ones we don't kill on a remote corner of Castro's island is probably for the best, since we'd be holding them here for life in a Supermax anyway.     

Aviation Update

Back to the MH370 mystery. Some interesting things have tumbled out over the past week or so.

One, a story suggesting that Captain Shah is now the prime suspect.  To support this new claim they reference some files evidently erased from his computer hard drive that showed he practiced landing on a remote island the southern Indian Ocean.  Gee, and after the Malaysians and some media outlets made a point to say the FBI had found "nothing sinister" on his hard drive back in March, which tended to shift focus away from the crew.

The new claim:

Investigators have previously refused to “clear” the captain’s flight simulator of suspicious activity, and it now appears they found evidence of routes programmed to take a plane far out into the Indian Ocean and practising landing using a short runway on an island.

So what exactly did the FBI say many moons ago after thoroughly searching the hard drive?  Well, searching their hard drive produces a big fat nothing.  And it's difficult to find anything in print from an official FBI source detailing their analysis of the hard drive(s), despite Director Comey telling Congress in late March that it would be released soon. 

The closest appears to be this NY Times report where an FBI spokesman was quoted, not as supporting the 'nothing to see here, move along' characterization used by the Malaysians, but basically saying nothing.   The "nothing sinister" appears to have come from an anonymous source.  The FBI spokesman didn't clarify the record and left the door open (bold for emphasis):

As the search in the Indian Ocean continued, the flight simulator and hard drives that the pilots of Flight 370 had at their homes appeared to be a dead end, yielding few clues that shed any light on whether they deliberately diverted the missing jet, according to two people briefed on the investigation.  They spoke on the condition on anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to secret information.

Malaysian authorities seized the devices early in their inquiry and, after initially keeping American officials at a distance, turned to the F.B.I. last week for help in analyzing them.

The Malaysians were particularly interested in learning what it was that the captain of the flight apparently deleted from the simulator. The F.B.I.'s spokesman, Michael Kortan, said the bureau would not discuss what it had found on the hard drives because the investigation was continuing.

Apparently it's still continuing.  But the "nothing sinister" meme overtook the narrative for several months until just recently. Such flim-flams are par for the course on this case but they can be explained perhaps as media misinformation perpetrated by authorities designed NOT to cover up a conspiracy, but to get suspects to act.  Or it's a conspiracy. Or they are covering for something.   

Another possibly weird thing is this claim in a new Daily Beast article on the mystery attributed to the president of Emirates Airlines:

Nobody wants to know the answer to this more than the airlines that operate fleets of Boeing 777s. For example, the largest operator of 777s is Emirates, based in Dubai. Its president, Tim Clark, is not happy with the conduct of the investigation.

He told Aviation Week: “There have been many questions unanswered or dealt with in a manner that is unacceptable to the forensic nature of the inquiry. “Something is not right here, and we need to get to the bottom of it. I need to know how anybody could interdict our systems. This aircraft was disabled in three primary systems. To be able to disable those requires a knowledge of the equipment which even our pilots in Emirates don’t have. Somebody got on board and knew exactly what they were up to.”

Emphasis added again to point out that even some aviation professionals are flummoxed at this investigation and also to point out the return of a theory posed in the earliest stories on the event where it was speculated that somebody would have to physically go down into the comms compartment under the floor of the cabin to turn something off. That added a level of complexity was allowed to gradually disappear over time yet the Emirates guy is still offhand mentioning it.  Is he not keeping up?  Or does he get his information from somebody other than Anderson Cooper? 

Finally--and this may have been answered at some point in the blizzard of expertise--why haven't they taken a similar B777, fueled it up as MH370 was, then retraced the hypothetical flight path. They could turn off the same internal systems and let it go 'dark', then fly west of Thailand into the Indian and take a left southwestward for a few hundred miles and see if the satellite pings match up with Inmarsat's data.

Clearly they would only need a few data points to establish a fit. Maybe they could fly another leg northwest and compare just to make sure.   The NTSB has been known to do this many times.  No need to go very far one way or the other as long as they got a few pings. Just a thought.

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?    

Success for Holder Already?

Did Eric Holder's new domestic terrorist task force, just announced in the press Tuesday (as his boss was defending his swapping of five terrorists for a US soldier) already score a victory?

Chamberlain was being trailed by a sizeable task force, made up of FBI agents and local cops. He was wanted for allegedly possessing explosive materials, and when FBI spokesman Peter Lee announced the bureau’s call for public assistance in the manhunt, he said Chamberlain should be considered armed and dangerous.

Hmm. Of course the media account of the task force formation contained the following verbiage, so there's a question..

"We must also concern ourselves with the continued danger we face from individuals within our own borders who may be motivated by a variety of other causes from anti-government animus to racial prejudice," Holder said.

It's quite possible Mr. Holder wasn't 'targeting' the Ryan Chamberlains of the world when he revived this squad started up by his old boss Janet Reno after the left blamed Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing.  But it's comforting to know the ACLU has the backs of the Tea Party terrorists undoubtedly in the 'crosshairs' here.

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.  

Conspiracy Update

Today is the 21st anniversary of the first attack on the World Trade Center by Muslim terrorists in 1993.  Some consider it the unofficial beginning of the GWoT.

Oddly, on the same day a story has emerged that brings even more fuzziness into the entire War on Terror narrative. 

Backtracking to 93, the perpetrators were not thought to be part of AQ, rather, they were loosely associated with the Egyptian Islamic Group attached to the Blind Shiekh Omar Rahman and/or the rootless, stateless variant known to include KSM. Bin Laden was considered a minor player at the time.

But the players have always been a bit of a mystery.   The most notable was Ramzi Yousef, who was born in Pakistan.  Called "Rashid the Iraqi" by his terror buds, he was locked up and forgotten before AQ became a force.  Another was Abdul Yasin, an actual Iraqi who has never been found (after fleeing to Saddam's Iraq after the attack).  Egyptians made up the bulk of the rest of the gang.   The hate for infidels is noted, but why would they have reason at that time to knock over the towers and kill 200,000 New Yorkers?  After all, we had liberated Afghanistan, Kosovo, allowed the Blind Shiekh safe harbor and had just cut the legs out from under Saddam Hussein, a noted whiskey drinking apostate.   

Over the years the focus morphed to UBL and AQ.  But journalists had long ago uncovered that the FBI was running an asset on the inside of the plot, an Egyptian named Emad Salem, who was bizarrely pulled from the inside some months before the attack.   That was a bit embarrassing, but it never became a huge public story as time passed and people forgot, except the 9/11 truthers, who consider it evidence of the grand plot.   

After 9/11 interest spiked again, but the 9/11 Commission decided not to go delve back too far into history in their review for some reason.  Had they done so they might have uncovered a new revelation surfaced today about the history of the FBI and UBL:

In a revelation missing from the official investigations of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the FBI placed a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden in 1993 and ascertained that the al Qaeda leader was looking to finance terrorist attacks in the United States, according to court testimony in a little-noticed employment dispute case.

No doubt this will light the conspiracy world on fire.  Perhaps it should--considering that the FBI has been able to keep this out of the limelight for over 20 years now.  If they can suppress something for 20 years it's not hard to think they could have suppressed info about something like a plane crash off the coast of Long Island.

But is this really a big deal?  In 1993 UBL was living in the Sudan. That's likely where this Egyptian asset met with him and found out about the Los Angeles plot.  The Times story does not say what happened to the source after 1994--he seems to have vanished--just like the notorious Ali Mohammed, star character of several Peter Lance books (but someone who's not known by the majority of Americans for some strange reason) who also disappeared.

Apparently this source was not reached soon enough to help prevent the 1993 WTC attack, but the public is left to puzzle on why, if the FBI had a source in the WTC plot, a source in Ali Mohammed (who was working with UBL) and presumably another mystery person (assuming it's not Mohammed), did the attacks continue during the 90s culminating in 9/11?  Did the government not come clean because Mohammed betrayed us as a double agent?  Is that why nobody seems to know where he is now, despite being in US custody after 1998?  Or was it just as Michael Moore and the Looser Changers have imagined, ie, ole Ali was an asset who helped Halliburton set up the GWoT so we could plunge for oil and treasure? 


Here's the kind of thing conspiracists will seize upon (emphasis added)...

Like Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Zelikow said he does not recall ever being told by the FBI about the 1993 source and that Mr. Curran’s disclosure appeared to involve “valuable intelligence gathered in 1993 and 1994.”

But Mr. Zelikow cautioned against reading too deeply into the revelation, asserting that bin Laden’s activities that long ago would be viewed as “pretty attenuated in relation to 9/11.”

Pretty attenuated? Is he kidding? This is the guy who blessed 9/11. We were told he was a non-factor during the first bombing. If he was directing terrorist attacks in America years before the government claims he was that's a pretty big thing because it means they either missed him, dismissed him, or were trying to suppress him. Continued stonewalling on stuff like this will only make things worse. 

And make it political.

For instance, right now there's a story on the wires about Clinton administration documents being held in the Clinton Library and not released as scheduled on January 1st, 2014.  Could there possibly be anything incriminating in those documents about the War on Terror they'd rather keep sealed before Billary is safely back in the White House?  Or did former Clinton official Sandy Berger take care of this problem when he pilfered documents in his socks from the National Archives before the 9/11 Commission could get to them?

And what of the Republicans and Bush? Was there a tie-in to George H.W. Bush that his son didn't want revealed during the investigation of 9/11?  If the source was indeed Ali Mohammad and Bin Laden was more important than we were told that would seem to leave some blame for 9/11 on 41, since they were figures in the jihad before Clinton came into power.  Mohammad was welcomed into the US Army, after all.

Or was that the reason the Bush administration went so easy on Berger for doing something that would have landed the average citizen in the Supermax beside Yousef?  He was protecting their legacy, too? 

Maybe time will tell. Until then there's rank speculation.  Right now the money speculation is not that this story proves a massive conspiracy hatched by American politicians to attack their own country ala Fahrenheit Loose Change Zeitgest 9/11.  They are generally too stupid and the circle of knowledge is far too wide.  People eventually talk, yet leaks from Wikileaks, Stratfor and Snowden have turned up nothing.

Rather, it's more likely a case of politicians, bureaucrats, and individuals covering their asses after a massive failure.  As we seen, it's not hard for the FBI to hide a covert operation for 20 years when the circle of knowledge is small (and careers/pensions are on the line).  It's just as likely that lousy dot-connecting and bureaucratic snafus were responsible as opposed to some massive, premeditated plot perfectly engineered and orchestrated flawlessly.  Hindsight is always 20/20.  As the old guard begins to retire and certain political figures die off maybe the truth will begin trickling out.  

But certainly these kinds of revelations don't endear confidence or trust in the authorities.

MORE  2/27/14

Not surprisingly Captain Ed at Hot Air basically downplayed this story as he is wont to do these days, choosing not to find much shock in the FBI suppressing something of this nature for 20 years amidst the climate of post 9/11 investigations. He also didn't question whether the FBI, though former director Loius Freeh, told the president (Clinton) or whether anyone in that administration, such as board member Jamie Gorelick, was derelict for not coming forth with such information, which could have possibly changed some of the 9/11 commission conclusions.  Remember, Sandy Berger was supposedly pilfering documents about the thwarted "Millennium" terror plot in 1999 where Ahmed Ressam was arrested before he could blow up LAX.  Was there anything in those docs that pointed back to this information?  

At any rate, Ed seems to be swayed by this NBC story, which portends to answer the questions the Washington Times report left hanging.  No, the AQ mole wasn't Ali Mohammed, but rather a guy who wound up dumping his mole duties for the FBI and hitching himself to the CIA, which supposedly got him killed by AQ operatives in Bosnia in 1995, which might explain his disappearance off the FBI radar scope in 1994. As to how the FBI learned of the mole's disappearance..

The FBI did not know at the time that its informant had started working for the CIA, or why he had disappeared. His former handler, Bassem Youssef, who by then was working undercover in Los Angeles as a supposed member of al Qaeda, began asking his al Qaeda sources what had become of the driver.

They told Youssef that the driver had gone to Bosnia, and that al Qaeda operatives there had killed him because they believed that he was a mole for the CIA. Later, Youssef was able to confirm that the al Qaeda operatives’ suspicions were justified, and that the driver had been working for the CIA.

So why wasn't this in the Times story yesterday?  NBC seemed to get it pretty quick--did they call the FBI and ask?  Did the Washington Times not bother?   Something else? 

Whatever the case it appears to be information designed to wrap a bow on the story and squelch any lingering questions, ie, the mole is dead now, nothing to see, move along.  Look over there--gay marriage! 

Except we've seen a lot in this one story.

1.  We've seen the Feds had bin Laden on their radar in 1993 and didn't report that to the 9/11 Commission.
2.   We've learned an AQ terror cell was based in Los Angeles well before the 1999 Ressam bombing plot, none of which was fully reported.
3.   We've learned there was a thwarted terror attack at an LA Masonic Lodge in 1993, engineered by bin Laden. 
4.   We've learned UBL was a money man for the Blind Shiekh network before anyone claimed it was occurring.  Why wasn't this reported?  Did bin Laden family connections to the Bush family have anything to do with it?  
5.  We know the FBI knew about a terror cell in San Diego years before the two 9/11 hijackers arrived in America and took roost there.  Had the FBI stopped surveillance on this cell or did they know about these two plotters?   The story to date has been that CIA refused to tell FBI about the hijackers, otherwise the plot may have been prevented.  This is what Richard Clarke keeps telling people.  Did Clarke know about this AQ cell in LA/mole story when it was happening?  If not, why not?  Was he right about a cover-up, but simply wrong about the agency?     

Yet NBC just puppets what their anonymous push-back sources told them:

Sources told NBC News, however, that they weren’t sure the informant was relevant to the 9/11 Commission, because by 2001 his short, albeit productive, relationship with the U.S. government – and his life – had been over for six years. In a statement, the FBI said that the FBI “made all relevant information available to the 9/11 Commission.”

Not a missile. Not relevant, nothing to see, move along.

And yes, the above sounds more than a little 9/11 trutherish. It's not.  9/11 was too big and too broad to be a conspiracy, much less a government conspiracy. It's one thing to keep a little self-serving secret like this story, it's another to keep someone from ratting out a politician attacking his own country.

No, it's just an example of how a rigid bureaucracy, internecine turf wars, raw politics, a misplaced sense of security, and a feeling that the mujahadeen who helped us beat the Soviets in Afghanistan were still on our side led to failure and that terrible day.  It's doubtful anyone did anything to purposely get people killed, other than the Islamoterrorists, who are still terrorists and must be eradicated. But a little truth wouldn't hurt every now and then.

AND FURTHERMORE  2/27/14

Bill O'Reilly has completed his journey from a questioning newsman to complete and utter dope. Poor Laura Ingraham had to gently hand him his backside on a pillow to keep it from cracking on air and hurting someone.  His self-congratulation and ass-kissing are past the point of embarrassment.  Megyn Kelly is now the alpha journalist on prime-time Fox.  This has nothing to do with this post, just had to get that in.

ANOTHER UPDATE  2/27/14

Guy Taylor from the WaTimes reports that the House will be looking into this.  Frank Wolf seems like one of the few straight-shooting congressmen, he's going to be taking charge...

Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI, said the panel would take a close look at what came of the human source that the FBI’s Los Angeles field office cultivated in 1993.

The source’s contributions, which included helping thwart a terrorist plot in Los Angeles, were never mentioned in the more than 500-page official report published in 2004 by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

In an interview with The Times on Wednesday evening, Mr. Wolf said the details surrounding the source represent “exactly the type of activity” that the newly established panel will examine. The panel, which is also being dubbed a “commission,” was created in late January under language Mr. Wolf crafted for Congress‘ 2013 omnibus appropriations bill that President Obama ultimately signed into law.

The question is whether there really are any true straight-shooters left. Maybe we'll see. Maybe we won't.

MORE  2/28/14

Some additional reporting...

ABC's Note makes it sound like the FBI is questioning former Special Agent Curran's story.  Their story title actually contains a question  mark.  FBI officials "could not recall" an asset meeting with UBL that early.  So they acknowledge the mole to NBC, claim he went to the CIA and they got him killed in Bosnia, but don't remember what he did back in 1993.  

As usual, the Daily Mail went out and found pictures of the FBI guys in their story, which pretty much summarizes other reporting.

But here's some partial paydirt--from Mother Jones.  They did a feature on Youssef in 2009, before the testimony, which fills in some holes..

The FBI's highest-ranking Arabic-speaking agent is a ghost. He goes to work each day, but walks the halls like an empty suit. Fellow agents whisper about his loyalty and talk about throwing him "off the roof." Bassem Youssef, after all, is the whistleblower at the center of two of the FBI's biggest ongoing scandals: its rampant abuse of national security letters to access confidential information on US citizens, and its failure to recruit Arabic-speaking agents. He's sued the bureau for discrimination and has been sidelined to a paper-pushing job. Yet he won't quit—he remains determined, he says, to fight the war on terror, even if he has to battle his bosses to do it.

The article is worth reading for perspective, especially when it describes Youssef's status during the mid 90s:

It wasn't always so. In the mid-1990s, if you were to call the FBI and ask for Bassem Youssef, the switchboard operator would tell you there was no such person. Known in those days by his alias, Adam Shoukry, Youssef was a star counterterrorism specialist, one of only a few agents in bureau history whose work was deemed so sensitive that the attorney general allowed him to go undercover within the FBI itself.

Almost a full decade before the 9/11 attacks, he managed to penetrate "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman's Islamic Group, which carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. (Some of its key members later joined Al Qaeda, which Youssef identified as a threat long before it was on most intelligence agents' radar.) The details of Youssef's service during this period remain classified, but his value as an agent was such that, in November 1994, he received the Director of Central Intelligence Award, a high honor reserved for the intelligence community's most skilled operators.

Fascinating.