20 years ago today...

...TWA flight 800 exploded off Long Island.   There's a lot going on in our world today and this will pass without thought for the most part, but it's worth mentioning that some consider this a cold case that was never fully solved.

Here's one of them--former NTSB investigator Hank Hughes, explaining his role and opinion.  For what it's worth, the damage pattern seen on MH17, a verifiable missile shoot-down, didn't resemble what can be seen on the reconstructed TWA 747.  But, we don't know what the wings or horizontal stabilizers looked like or the tail fin as they were not included in the rebuild.  Nor were the engines. 

And we still don't know why agencies like the CIA were involved in explaining to the public the NTSB's implausible scenario that the nose fell off and the rest of the aircraft ascended several thousand feet, which was meant to explain away eyewitnesses who said they saw missile streaks.

Meanwhile, few if any aircraft have been retrofitted for nitrogen inerting systems, which were supposed to prevent future similar crashes, of which there have been none.  And cargo aircraft were not included in this recommended fix because we all know cargo aircraft don't blow up or something.  So you decide.   

Regardless, the official probable cause is in the books and will not be changed anytime soon. Eventually the skeptics and cynics and conspiracists will die off and the story of flight 800 will be relegated to the corners of history.  But there's someone running for president right now who might know a little more than the average Joe.

Aviation Update

Once again an aviation tragedy gets turned into a political football.   But this isn't all about Trump. 

Yes, the Donald showed poor judgment in jumping on the terrorist bandwagon as soon as the news reports came in on EgyptAir 804.  While that might have been everyone's gut reaction, a president cannot always operate off gut reactions.  Imagine Trump in the White House reacting this way then later the crash is blamed on a mechanical issue.   And that's no endorsement of Hillary, who also got on the bomb theory bandwagon albeit after unnamed US officials leaked what might amount to the same suspicions everyone else had.


Of course those US officials were echoing Egyptian officials in the early terror pronouncement.   And yes, the media has already started a whitewash campaign to pretend that Hillary really didn't endorse the terrorism angle on day one just like Donald, and will use it as a cudgel against him.   But he allowed it.

Meanwhile, those same initial reports indicated there was no distress call from the jet to Egyptian air traffic control after it was 'handed off' from Greek controllers. Some news stories suggested there was no contact at all--the plane just went down.  That's presumably what got many in the US media going down the terrorism road.     

Now today it was reported that there was actually an extensive conversation between Egyptian ATC and the doomed plane as it made an emergency descent due to a fire.  Wow, how did that get lost?  So that begs the question: were early reports from Cairo bungled or was it a deliberate deception?  Perhaps that's why someone on the inside leaked ACARS reports to Avherald that showed the onboard fire.  

Does all this mean the Donald goofed up and there was no terror attack?  Yes and maybe no.  Yes, he goofed up by jumping the gun, but yes it might still be an attack.  We know there was a fire, it started somewhere/somehow.  Terrorists these days are likely using small incendiary devices they can get past security--recall the Daallo Airlines A321 event where the idiot succeeded in blowing himself out of the jet and killing nobody else. The plane landed safely.  He smuggled the device in on his wheelchair.  So just because the aircraft didn't suffer a complete hull failure and immediately fall from the sky doesn't mean it wasn't attacked by someone. 

Also, just because the fire might have started in the electronics bay or lavatory doesn't necessarily mean there was no sabotage involved-- see the New York Times story today about what EgyptAir employees scrawled on the outside of that very same aircraft after current president Al-Sisi couped out Muslim Brotherhood terrorist sympathizer Mohammed Morsi two years ago.  That might amount to Jihadi sabotage, which most people would consider the same as Islamic terrorism. 

Still, all this new information certainly tips the scales of likely cause away from terrorism and more towards mechanical failure.   The question then becomes why the Egyptians allowed the erroneous information to percolate in the world media for days?   Was their concern legal liability or were they seriously trying to deflect while giving them time to comb their airports for Morsi/ISIS sympathizers?  Is the submarine they are sending in meant to locate the wreckage or maybe manage it?

Whatever the case, it behooves politicians and other officials to reserve judgments on these kinds of events for at least a few days.      

MORE  5/23/16

In another example of how most media outlets shouldn't be trusted to even report on a 3td class presidential race, much less important worldwide events, now they are saying there was no extended conversation.   And no, it doesn't mean that was deception or misdirection, it was likely some media twit misunderstanding the source. 

Also, on CNN's coverage this evening they were saying that whole 90 degree 360 degree turn thing might be fiction as well, since that information was presumably gleaned from primary radar only.  If the leaked ACARS messages indeed ended abruptly only minutes into the event, along with the secondary radar transponder track, then it seems we are back to Trump's original speculation.  At least right now.  The only definitive way to settle this will be the old-fashioned way, analyzing the recorders and wreckage.   But politicos don't have time to wait.   

A lot more than 28 pages

The media is becoming buzzed about the uproar about the 28 redacted pages in the 9/11 report that presumably fingers Saudi involvement (and Bushco protection) in the plot. Obama, while calling his administration the most transparent ever, has refused to release pages for his entire presidency for some reason.  Riyadh is throwing out a massive bluff in an effort to stop it, well, an effort to retain sovereign immunity so they won't be sued. 

With recent pressure the president has royally proclaimed he will decide on whether to declassify it during some Friday before a holiday weekend this summer.  Meaning he can either decide not to and hope the presidential elections suck all the attention away, or announce he will declassify the pages and hope it takes until Christmas to complete.   It's surprising he didn't appoint another blue ribbon panel to study whether he should declassify these or not, which is probably because he doesn't need a year or two to stall.  

Speculation has focused on the docs confirming the Michael Moore Fahrenheit 9/11 cartoon version of Bush, but stop and use some critical thought for a second.

One, if this were just some politically embarrassing confirmation on Bush's chummy friendship with the Sauds why wasn't it released long ago?   Two, 9/11 and Islamic terrorism didn't just spring forth on W's inauguration day, it was there dating back to his pappy's presidency at least. So, what about Saudi involvement in terrorism BEFORE Bush? Were they playing a double game with us with bin Laden, et al? 

It's possible, certainly not probable, but possible the release of the 28 pages might also pressure some sunshine on the details described in this essay going back to the 90s.  For instance, who was Ramzi Yousef, exactly? Who funded him? Who were he and his uncle KSM really working for, or against? Was there Saudi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing, or other plots going back well before 9/11?   This of course would be seminal considering that Bill Clinton is effectively running for a third term in the White House. 

There are many reasons why even an Obama administration wouldn't release information fingering the House of Saud in the 9/11 plot, oil, obviously, but also the notion that America was going to war with Mecca and Medina.  Or the notion that 28 pages won't satisfy our curiosity.   Hillary already knows the answers to many of these questions and she's a favorite to enter the Oval Office and lock everything down for another 8 years.  Good luck getting anything out of a president allowed to get away with having a private server. 

So we return to Obama and the 28 pages.   If he does shock the world and authorize release--and the release occurs before the November elections--and it illustrates Saudi involvement in the plot DURING the tenure of Bill Clinton (when the plot was hatched), what would that do to his wife's presidential chances?   Is Obama holding a massive Trump card at the moment?

HILLARY WEIGHS IN .. already

In a slightly bizarre spectacle former Clinton insider George Stephanopoulis asks Hillary about the Schumer-Cornyn 9/11 bill, in which she claims she has no opinion on because she hasn't studied it (maybe she learned about it on TV).  After the interview, Team Hillary realized how bad this looked and responded with a statement, which is a model for law school students:

"Hillary Clinton supports the efforts by Senator Schumer and his colleagues in the Senate to secure the ability of 9/11 families and other victims of terrorist acts to hold accountable those responsible. As president she would work with Congress to this end."

Hard-hitting and specific! Hillary wants to hold people accountable!  The person who used a private server, outside of all government rules and ethics.

MORE  4/17/16

It's interesting that 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said the following:

John Lehman, secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration and another member of the 9/11 Commission, told 60 Minutes:

“We’re not a bunch of rubes that rode into Washington for this commission… We’ve seen fire and we’ve seen rain and the politics of national security. We all have dealt for our careers in highly classified and compartmentalized in every aspect of security. We know when something shouldn’t be declassified. And this, those 28 pages in no way fall into that category.”

[snip]

Lehman told 60 Minutes that he has no doubt some high Saudi officials knew assistance was being provided to al Qaeda, but he doesn’t think it was ever official policy. He also doesn’t think it absolves the Saudis of responsibility, Kroft said in his commentary.

Keep in mind the 28 pages aren't from the 9/11 Commission Report, which barely mentions Bandar, they are from a Congressional Inquiry Report initiated in 2002. The question then is whether this information was classified only by the Bush administration, or whether there were Democrats on the committee who agreed to keep it quiet.

After all, the Kuala Lumpur terror summit meeting was held in January 2000, well before Bushitler and Darth Cheney entered office.  If Saudi Arabia was working with AQ that means they were doing so under Clinton.   Did he know?  We are left with the following scenarios regarding the CIA:  1) they knew about Saudi involvement but didn't tell Clinton, or 2) they didn't know about it, and if so, why not (especially since they tracked the terrorists from Kuala Lumpur to Los Angeles)?  Or 3) they knew and told Clinton but he didn't do anything, or worse, told agencies to stand down.

All of those have tremendous blowback potential not directed towards Bush.   The question is will the media allow any blowback on the Clintons for anything?   They may not, but they have no control over a loose cannon like Trump at a debate, do they. 

WORD   4/19/16

This should be the final post on this topic, really on this blog, period.  Many bloggers got their legs posting on the search for objective truth about the GWoT, especially after the disinformation began.  I threw in my two cents because it seemed important.

Now Donald Trump, the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States, is out today using this 28 page issue to suggest Bush fraudulently attacked Iraq, exactly as far lefties have claimed for years.  Forget that it's another attempt at throwing away all history prior to Bush's inauguration.  It's maddening to see this twit out there rolling this issue to pander to moderate and lefty New York voters and think he's the frontrunner.   It's a subject that should not be 'used' for anything, it should be investigated like everything else.  

It's equally maddening to see Bill Clinton poised for a THIRD TERM in the White House after everything that has occurred since he left, stuff partially caused by his failures to stop AQ from growing during the 90s, as "path to 9/11" indicated.  The media?   They do not care about objective truth they care about the coronation of his wife as the first woman president because they love her and the concept of her.  This despite her disqualifying display of ineptness and lack of judgment in the personal server story alone (Benghazi not included).   The fight has basically been lost.  But here's one more attempt to pass along some rational thought.

John Schindler: why we need to discuss more than just Saudi Arabia.   

Transparency Clinton Style

Say what you will about the bizarre spectacle that is the GOP primary, the primary alternative continues to display her own special clown act.  Here's an example of where she thinks the public deserves transparency...

Hillary Clinton says barring any national security risk, she would like to open up the government files on Area 51 to the public if she is elected president. “I would like us to go into those files and hopefully make as much of that public as possible,” she told Jimmy Kimmel Thursday night on his late night ABC talk show. “If there’s nothing there, let’s tell people there’s nothing there.”

And here's a situation where she doesn't think the public deserves transparency:

The previously undisclosed February 2009 emails between Clinton from her then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, raise new questions about the scope of emails from Clinton’s early days in office that were not handed over to the State Department for record keeping and may have been lost entirely. Clinton’s presidential campaign has previously claimed that the former top diplomat did not use her personal "clintonemail.com" account before March 2009, weeks after she was sworn in as secretary of State.

Pretty telling, eh?  No wonder the kids like Bernie. 

In the meantime, video is making the rounds of a national security stemwinder Mrs Clinton puffed out recently in the shadow of Brussels wherein she compares her steady leadership against Trump's when it comes to kicking some terrorist arse and gathering our friends to help.

And such a strategy might be an effective, especially if propped up by the media, except for one thing--most of what she's talking about doing are things Obama is currently NOT doing, and she was an integral part of his administration when the Arab Spring in Syria gave rise to ISIS.   

But Obama is trying to help.  He's been slow-rolling his fight against the JV squad since 2012 but lately it seems progress is being made with the loss of their number two and the counter-attack to recapture Mosul underway.  The Syrian Army is retaking parts of their country after a dose of Putey Poot.  ISIS may indeed be on the run now.  All of this may time out perfectly for November. 

But again, not so fast.  There are still ISIS cells in Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere, plus thousands of radicalized wannabees sprinkled around the globe.  Obama will have to answer to his policy of "Assad must go" if Assad becomes more firmly entrenched.  That's his legacy problem, but nobody will really care.  But Libya?  That's on Hillary.  Which is low-hanging fruit for a player like Trump.

Pipe Dreams and other things

Donald Trump recently said it-- Bush lied!   And that's odd, since his likely opponent Hillary Clinton has never out and out called Bush a liar on Iraq.  With that in mind, Instapundit links a slick video featuring Judith Miller explaining why Bush didn't lie about Iraq...


It's sad such a video has to be made because it was obvious to any informed person that Bush didn't lie.  Grossly misunderestimate the Butcher?  Panic a little after 9/11?  Worry about being blamed for follow on attacks traced to Iraqi material or know-how?  Yes, yes and yes. 

But in a world where people will willingly raise their right hands and swear allegiance to Donald Trump or vote for an outright socialist who thinks everything should basically be free, people will believe anything

Of course the Miller video will never be believed by those who believe Bush lied, but some of us will never stop trying to speak truth to power. 

So here's a flashback to current Vice President Joe Biden discussing Iraq and the lie meme with the late Tim Russert back in 2007, with added emphasis:

MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

This was the same Joe Biden who said Iraq would be a wonderful victory for America when Obama pulled everyone out in 2011. Joe knows some things about Saddam. So does Hillary. She knows what her husband knows. Neither have ever claimed Bush lied.  They just let that sleeping dog lie because they know it's the gift that keeps giving.  But they dare not go very far down the path. 

Mrs Clinton's adviser John Podesta recently said he wants reporters to ask her about UFOs. He says people can 'handle the truth'. Well maybe, unless it's this truth.  But people can handle all kinds of truths.  Get some knowledgeable people to ask her about Saddam. If they catch her unprepared with the right questions it might change the election.

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?

Carnival of Clowns

This is the kind of nonsense the Republicans are going to face going forward.  Front page of the NY Times today, a widget looping through the four main campaign issues determined by the Times, and framed by the Times..

So there you go, issues boiled down in a cartoonish fashion right before the debate, with no specific mention of fighting ISIS other than whether they want to admit Syrian refugees. Nothing at all about foreign policy other than global warming.  Maybe this was sent to the Times from the White House.

If you throw in the clown show that is Trump and how he is setting up a large part of the GOP electorate to be called bitterly clinging racist rubes by Clinton when he finally flames out; and if you consider that unlike General Petraeus, Hillary Clinton's far worse security violations will not be punished, it's beginning to look like this election is already over. They might as well just let George Stephanapoulis anoint the Clintons on Good Morning America and save us all the trouble of listening to campaign ads and robocalls.

A Strange Eulogy

Sandy Berger, the former National Security Advisor to Bill Clinton, has passed away. He died of cancer at 70 on Wednesday, ironically the same day America was attacked again by Islamic terrorists. Ironic, because he will be remembered more for his role in terrorism than anything else he accomplished in his career.

Here's a eulogy of sorts by the Politico, which contains some rather strange comments. First, from the current president:

"From his service in President Carter's State Department to President Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy devoted himself to strengthening American leadership in an uncertain world," Obama said. "Today, his legacy can be seen in a peaceful Balkans, our strong alliance with Japan, our deeper relationships with India and China."

First, was our relationship with Japan broken before Clinton came in? Second, you'll notice there's no mention of his legacy regarding Islamic terrorism (well, mainly because to the White House, it doesn't exist).  Here's how his former bosses remembered their old co-worker:

"Nobody was more knowledgeable about policy or smarter about how to formulate it," Bill and Hillary Clinton said in a statement Wednesday. "He was great both in analyzing a situation and figuring out what to do about it. His gifts proved invaluable time and time again, in Latin America, the Balkans, Northern Ireland and the Middle East."

The "Middle East"? Hmm, what did Berger do to improve it leading up to 9/11? But he was apparently an important outside advisor to Hillary2016!

As secretary of state, Clinton consulted Berger on topics from how to handle Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to how to "gain leverage over the Pakistanis" and persuade them to go after al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, her emails show.

Wonder what he thought of the private server debacle, considering the fact he was once described as "sloppy" with regards to national security?  Or maybe that was the advice.  Anyway, he persuaded the Pakistanis to go after bin Laden? That didn't really work out too well, unless somebody just slipped something out (some believe they were involved).  But of course the Politico saved the most prolific part of Berger's legacy for last:

Berger's legacy was marred, however, when he pleaded guilty in 2005 to removing highly classified documents from the National Archives in Washington the previous year. The inspector general of the National Archives said that a staff member had witnessed the former NSA adviser wrapping the classified documents around his socks and under his pants.

And have we ever discovered exactly what he removed and/or destroyed from that esteemed repository, or why? Media at the time speculated it had to do only with the Millennium bombing plot (LAX) after-action reports he had access to, but that never made sense because it was a victory of sorts for Clinton.  Remember, he was prepping for interviews from the 9/11 Commission. 

Others were more conspiratorial, figuring it had something to do with TWA 800. Others theorized it had to do with the hunt, or lack thereof, for bin Laden before 9/11.   Remember how apoplectic Clinton got when anyone suggested he didn't go hard after weird beard? 

Or maybe it was to do with the attacks on Khartoum in 1998 following the AQ attack on the African embassies--Berger made the case Saddam Hussein was helping bin Laden cook up VX nerve gas. After a pharmaceutical plant specializing in manufacturing aspirin was bombed in response to his guidance--and no links were found-- Berger apologized. Wait, no, he never apologized or came down off that advice, at least publicly.  After the Bush invasion of Iraq it was odd the media never went back and revisited that mission, since the Clintons were basically bombing a country due to a link between Saddan and AQ.  Ok, just kidding there, it's not at all strange they wanted nothing to do with that history.  After all, they were involved.  

Actually it was all just another example of the vast right wing conspiracy.   Media Matters explained it all back in 2005, nothing to see move along wing nuts.

I always wondered about the risk/reward of stealing the docs and never completely bought the bumbler Oscar Madison meme, none of which seem supported by the linked accolades.  So, what would prompt such a risk? If it was protecting national security at large somebody else could have done it.  Makes more sense for it to have been more of a personal mission. With Hillary representing the future of the Clinton political machine at the time it made more sense as an attempt to get something very incriminating and legacy toppling out of the way before the 9/11 Commission, or politicians thereon, found it.  That he wasn't locked away by a Republican administration also begged a lot--a lot--of questions.

Unfortunately for the sake of transparency and the American public's right to know, he has taken some of that information to the grave. Based on all the good he did for the poor and hungry around the world let's hope it was one of those "you can't handle the truth" things rather than merely a secret mission from team Little Rock.   We probably stand more of a chance of seeing the Khalidi going away party video than we do ever getting closure here. 

Hillary emails: Not Really About Classified

Is the former Secretary of State in hot water due to possibly trafficking classified emails on her private email system?  News coverage seems to be trending that direction.  But it could also be a huge red herring.   The FBI is now involved, what if they come back in say January and announce that no evidence was found of her illegally moving classified documents?

Yes, that will effectively 'clear' her in the minds of those who carve the American narrative (and you know you they are).  Hillary will sail forward to the nomination calling anyone who brings up the matter a hater or worse and she will be bolstered by her high profile supporters, otherwise known as mainstream journalists.

That's why people need to take a step back and focus.

The issue is not just classified emails.  Finding zero evidence of classified docs doesn't clear her.  Her crime is conducting government business entirely on a private server she controlled!   Based on rules and good ethics practices alone it basically an illegal network.  She literally told the American public to pound sand--she was going to have her own State Dept IT department and run her business off the grid, not reachable by FOIA or Congress or even some in the administration. 

And when it came time to turn over government-related emails to the archivists, she and she alone got to decide what was relevant and what went to the bit bucket.   And that HAD TO BE by design.  And that design had to be approved by the President of the United States, where bucks are supposed to go to stop.

And this same person is running to control everything. 

The Old Gray Lady takes a Mulligan (or three)

It's obvious to anyone of even marginal intellect that the New York Times bowed to the pressure of the Clinton political machine in walking back a story from last week suggesting Hillary was the possible target of a criminal inquiry into her email debacle.

So yes, conservatives were ticked, mainly because nothing like that ever happens to them after a NY Times bombshell. When a former Bush White House press secretary confirms it then it's not just a bunch of squawking from partisan yahoos.

Now enter another yahoo doing what leftists do--spinning the legitimate response into something sinister in an attempt to make the response--not the original action--the story:

The point here being that the New York Times wasn’t buckling under to the Clinton campaign. It was undertaking a long and painful walk-back.

Eric fargin Wemple, spending a column bashing conservatives for reacting to the Times reversing a blockbuster story before it was even through the news cycle, done at the behest of the Clinton campaign, based on the same kind of anonymous sourcing they claim was behind the original story.  Wow, it's not like the Times doesn't have editors.  Or reporters.  Or maybe they enacted this FUBAR on purpose?

On Friday afternoon, the Erik Wemple Blog asked Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill what he thought of complaints that the New York Times was doing the bidding of the Clinton campaign in making those initial, stealth changes. His answer: “You’re not serious are you?”

Ahhhhh. Yes. A Clinton hack says the mainstream media is tough on Hils, so it's true, right Eric? Maybe he doesn't realize how stupid that sounds.

Maybe he doesn't realize David Petraeus was brought up on charges for handing classified info to a fellow member of the military (with a clearance) and had his career ruined. 

It's really getting hard to put fingers to keyboard anymore.   This stuff never changes.  The Alinsky press continues focusing on GOP division, heralding every Trump quote about Mexicans as they put a GOP sign around his neck, while ignoring the fact he never bashes Hillary, which makes his entire stunt suspect.  But not worth investigating.  They don't even know Fiorina exists.  And the surgeon is invisible.  They simply never tire of trying to shape the campaign rather than just reporting on it.

And don't even start on the GOP itself, who deserve all the incoming ridicule.  Way to pull defeat from the jaws of victory, McBoner.    

Meanwhile the president has become nothing but a shallow Democratic message board troll, flitting around here and there on Air Force One to scold half the nation (when not scolding foreign leaders not involved in terrorism), actually saying he's concerned about who HE hands the keys to the White House in 2017?  Excuse me sir, but YOU are not handing them to anyone WE don't elect.  You get one vote just like the rest of us.

Amazing.   Frustrating.  Ridiculous.   America, 2015.  

NEED MORE?   7/28/15

Here's a screen grab of the Washington Post headlines on their front page, around 4pm Central Time...

Translations...

News
1.  Huckabee's an idiot
2.  Paul:  engaging in war on women with poor pun
3.  Huckabee pandering to blacks
Opinion
1.  Ted Cruz is bullying his own party--they are tired of it but found out he's a pansy
2.  Trump didn't say anything wrong but his advisor did, same thing
3.  The far right:  spree killers just like the Lafayette theater nut
4.  Bush (it could be any of them) hints GOP primary voters are extremists
5.  Hillary Clinton is a 'wounded queen', poor gal
6.  Some idiocy about white women
7.  Wow, they attack Hillary but it's about the Keystone Pipeline
8.  Jon Stewart: progressive hero figure
More Headlines:
1.  Pollard freed by Obama!   No actually, he just got parole by magic.  No politics here! 
2, 3, 4, actual real news
5.  Evil hunter killed the Lion King 

 You're welcome. 

Go back in the hole, Seymour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MORE  5/11/15

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

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

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

MORE  5/12/15

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

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

FUNNY, THAT  5/12/15

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deeply Held Beliefs Update

For the life of me I don't know how someone could say something like this--using the words she used--then later reverse it.  Only a true politician could reverse a 'sacred bond'.



There will no doubt be an elaborate explanation for this reversal coming soon, including hints that the reversal itself was due to the hatred of the vast right wing conspiracy.  The question is whether she will get away with it.

Al-Douri Dead, Again

Maybe this time they really got him:

A top aide of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been killed during fighting against Sunni insurgent forces, senior Iraqi officials claimed Friday, in a potential blow to factions opposing the government in Baghdad.

But previous reports over the years about the death of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri have proven wrong. Iraqi officials said a DNA analysis of the body was planned.

Indeed, he's one of the top zombie fighters left in the deck of cards. But it certainly does look a little like him, maybe on one of his worse days.

Assuming he's finally in heaven meeting 72 virgins that look like Helen Thomas, the political class will probably decide to use him as a cudgel against Bush-- Jeb Bush.  In the twisted logic of liberal-land it works like this: had George W Bush not invaded Iraq and turned loose the dogs of AQ and other insurgents, Izzat would have never mattered. He would have been inconsequential. And all those innocent people that ISIS butchered would still be there.  Al-Douri had to fight because Bush tossed his Sunni regime out.  Therefore GW Bush created ISIL (Obama-approved acronym) so Jeb Bush is a warmonger who will create more ISILs or something.

But there's another side of the coin.  Izzat al-Douri was the one who persuaded Saddam to put "Allahu Akbar" on the Iraqi flag after the Gulf War. He was in charge of Islamizing Saddam's regime to some degree, probably to keep the Islamic Jihadists at bay during the post-war era where Saddam's power had been eroded. In doing so there was a certain embrace of the radicals, which showed itself to the very end with Douri's Naqshbandi Order having little trouble tag-teaming with the terrorists in an attempt to retake Iraq. So the question should be "where else did they tag-team"?

But of course, everyone considers that question long-answered.  And Jeb Bush probably has no desire to answer it any differently.  And he really doesn't have to if Hillary is his opponent.  But if Hillary drops out he will be forced to deal with it, one way or the other.  Will he throw big brother under the bus while embracing his foreign policy?  Wouldn't look very presidential.  

MORE  4/17/15

I confess I've always been weirdly obsessed with this guy.  Maybe it's because for such a high-level member of the old regime, nobody seems to care about him. The Bush people never made him a public target or even discussed him; the Obama people have never mentioned his name to my knowledge, despite his purported role in ISIS.  Here's another example of the weirdness.  Marie Harf at State is asked about the death report, to which she 1) coughs, 2) looks uninterested, 3) tried to quickly move on, and 4) says "I'll check" several times, which means we'll never hear about it again unless someone asks.  At the end of the clip watch her eyes--she seems to almost roll them.   Why would the administration not want to celebrate this kill?

 

With the news people are asking if he's the last remaining figure in the old most wanted "deck of cards" (he was King of Clubs).   To my knowledge one of the bigger figures is still missing--Taher Habbush, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, who might know a thing or two or three about a lot of things. 

Hard to Disagree

As much as the thought of another Bush in the White House is like anticipating a root canal, Jeb's vision of US foreign policy is pretty hard to disagree with:

“We now have a president — the first one, I believe, in the post-World War II era — that believes that America’s power is not appropriate and America’s presence is not a force for good,” Jeb Bush told a crowd of business leaders in Columbus, Ohio, this week.

“He’s wrong. With all due respect, he is just plain wrong.” “America needs to lead. America needs to stay engaged,” he added. “America’s friends need to know that we have their back over the long haul, and our enemies need to fear us a little bit.”

He's also not apologizing for thinking that way despite the polls, which is a likeable and useful trait in a president. Do not take this an endorsement, other Republicans may share it as well, and Bush will have to convince people he's not a warmonger thanks to his brother who refuses to defend himself.  But it's the correct way to think about foreign policy.  It's not just the economy, stupid.

Making some broad assumptions, it will be interesting to see how Hillary might react to such a position considering her reputation as a foreign policy hawk. It might force her to move left on the issue if there's a primary and back right in the general election.  All the more reason for the Democrats to just crown her and move forward if they can get away with it.   

Surviving, Hillary Style

Snippets of Hillary's until-recent secret emails were leaked to the NY Times, who reported on them today with general characterizations.  Here's one:

Two weeks after that first email assessing Ms. Rice’s appearance, Mr. Sullivan sent Mrs. Clinton a very different email. This time, he appeared to reassure the secretary of state that she had avoided the problems Ms. Rice was confronting.

He told Mrs. Clinton that he had reviewed her public remarks since the attack and that she had avoided the language that had landed Ms. Rice in trouble. “You never said ‘spontaneous’ or characterized their motivations,” Mr. Sullivan wrote.

So much for team spirit.  So much for the excuse about being too tired to get on TV, etc.  But as the Times indicates, this was a change from emails sent a few days after Benghazi..

“She did make clear our view that this started spontaneously then evolved,” Mr. Sullivan wrote to Mrs. Clinton.

Clearly the administration was running a narrative, it fell apart, they finally punted, and all the while Hillary's minions were reporting back to her on the Blackberry about how she was coming off in the media.   The few email summaries of course don't shine any light on who crafted the "spontaneous" narrative (only that Hillary was onboard) but they do suggest Susan Rice was not looking good and the conversation was more about optics than a terrorist attack on 9/11.  As the ranking Democrat on the committee said, they should release them all for context (of course he meant the ones selected by Hillary, not all of them).

It's important to know the leakers of these characterizations (and caution is noted here--the last time congress leaked some Benghazi emails to the press there was a trap included) . If the leakers were on Gowdy's committee that points one way; if they were Obama officials that points another; and if they were Hillary sympathizers still at the State Dept that could point another way.  Interestingly, State spokesgal Marie Harf would not condemn the leak or take umbrage with the truthfulness during her press conference today, only expressing amusement at how the leakers identified themselves (worried about losing their clearances).

So let's speculate wildly.  Survival is what it's all about with Team Clinton, so the hope is probably that the media will forget about these emails after awhile as more GOP candidates get into the race, which amounts to a good reason to get this story out of the way now rather than have it break as someone announces, allowing immediate fodder.  Come time to debate the emails will be ancient history, with any mention of them spun as impugning her highness' integrity and part of the GOP War on Women.  The media may actually play along--especially if they are involved in helping her get this story out of the way now (there may be emails to that end, somewhere on some private listserve). 

Anyway, one day--long after President Goldman Sachs has been reelected, they can be released on a Friday before a holiday weekend during a bimbo eruption involving the First Man.

Speaking of emails...

This whole Hillary email flap reminds me of this testy exchange between her body man Philippe Reines and the late Michael Hastings a few days after Benghazi in 2012.

The general context is that after CNN found Stevens' personal diary lying on the floor of the burned out consulate a few days after the attack (while the administration was officially saying it was a spontaneous attack based on a protest) they agreed via State and the family not to publish its contents out of respect. But after Susan Rice's blitz on five Sunday shows a few days later, essentially doubling down on the protest meme, CNN went to other sources and confirmed an entry in the diary where Stevens had expressed concern about being on "an AQ hit list" before the attack.

This unset the spontaneous protest lie and the State people were pissed, whereupon Reines and others dropped the hammer on CNN and Cooper while Hillary feigned ignorance about everything.  In response to being challenged, Cooper admitted the next day CNN had the diary (to save their reporting) and were getting it from the contents, which caused more flaming from the State Dept towards CNN.

Hastings then got involved in response to the bitching, emailing Reines in an exchange that became infamous, in part as follows:

From: Michael Hastings Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:04 PM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J 
Subject: Re: Request for comment Philippe:

Thanks for getting back to me. No, you read my email correctly—I found your statement to CNN offensive. From my perspective, the scandal here is that the State Department had such inadequate security procedures in place that four Americans were killed. And then the Ambassador’s diary—and who knows what else—was left behind for anyone to pick up. Thankfully, it was CNN—and not Al Qaeda or some other militia—that found it and was able to return it to the family. That CNN used portions of the material in the diary they found at the scene—material that appears to contradict the official version of events that State/WH has been putting out—is completely in line with practices of good journalism.

I don’t know how involved Arwa Damon has been in this. But for what it’s worth, Arwa is one of the best war correspondents working today. She’s consistently risked her life to get these stories, and to find out what actually happens in these conflict zones.I do agree that the media has lots of responsibilities, and CNN fulfilled its responsibility by returning the diary while still managing to inform the American public of newsworthy information. So it’s unfortunate that you are trying to make a scapegoat out of CNN. That State was forced to flee Benghazi—again, because of such inadequate security, leaving behind all sorts of sensitive information—tells us more about DoS than CNN.

The misinformation here seems largely to be coming from State and the administration. The defense that the administration has offered that there was no intelligence warning of an attack is weak. If there was no intel, then clearly the CIA and other intel agents stationed in Benghazi weren’t doing their jobs well. If there was intel, then we have some kind of cover-up—whether out of incompetence or ass covering before the election or just the trauma of losing four good men, it’s hard for me to say at this point.


All the best, 
Michael

______________________________________

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote: 
Why do you bother to ask questions you’ve already decided you know the answers to?

______________________________________

From: Michael Hastings Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:50 PM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J 
Subject: Re: Request for comment 



Why don’t you give answers that aren’t bullshit for a change?

______________________________________

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:


I now understand why the official investigation by the Department of the Defense as reported by The Army Times The Washington Post concluded beyond a doubt that you’re an unmitigated asshole. How’s that for a non-bullshit response? Now that we’ve gotten that out of our systems, have a good day. And by good day, I mean Fuck Off

It's obvious State was upset about that diary, mainly because it confirmed that Stevens was worried well beforehand about "AQ" while the administration was simultaneously pushing an "AQ is decimated and on the run" campaign theme.  Maybe they felt they could slide past the whole affair--at least through the coming election--and the diary exploded the spontaneous protest BS explanation.  Maybe somebody could ask.

But there's also a tone of betrayal in Reines' replies, as if he was disappointed in CNN. This exchange would have never happened in regards to Fox News, but it's likely they felt hurt CNN would actually report something factual without helping them spin it as usual.  They had a deal.  Hillary knew what was in that diary, about his fears of AQ, but if they kept it under wraps it would be hard for the media to discover.

It's odd that Hastings later died in a car accident while Reines went on to work at a consulting group along with CIA numero uno Michael Morell, who inexplicably ignored his people on the ground in Libya who said it wasn't about a protest.  That was the main finding of the House Intelligence Committee report, by the way.

Anyway, back to the present.  Not surprisingly, Hillary wasn't listed on any of these emails and Buzzfeed didn't provide actual addresses. It's likely the exchange occurred via formal State Dept email since it was an inquiry from Hastings. The question is, did Reines or others also have private email accounts they used to communicate with Hillary's private account to coordinate responses to stuff like this?  If so, how would anyone know? 

It makes no sense otherwise. Why would Hillary need a private email system other than to quickly communicate with Bill and other political operatives across vast distances during breaking events WITHOUT LEAVING A SUBPOENA TRAIL?  Her entire tenure as SoS was about getting to the White House one day, therefore she needed political people around at all time to clean up messes, which required some method of secure communication to enable candid exchanges.

She and Bill knew at some point Republicans would come after the messages but without knowing what they needed to know they couldn't possibly find the good stuff, especially if the messages were sent to other private email accounts.  All the good stuff on the personal server could be dumped to a memory stick before taking a sledge hammer to the hard drives.  Committee chairmen doing investigations would need help from the NSA to find all her emails, which ain't gonna happen.

The only way Gowdy and company win this round is to get the idea out in public that Hillary is both sneaky and arrogant who expects underlings to do things she won't do.  That's a tough sell in our current Kardashian existence.  

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. 

Another Ali

One might think that understanding a terror group like al Qaeda would require some historical background.  Yet most seemed satisfied with the abbreviated picture provided by the 9/11 Commission Report, never wondering much about how the two WTC attacks tied together.  After all, there was that August 2001 PDB thing that Bush ignored.

But the history remains, waiting to be uncovered.  For instance, there was that whole thing with Ali Mohammad, an Egyptian double crosser, a story few have ever heard.  And Emad Salem, the Egyptian mole planted in the Brooklyn cell by the FBI but pulled before the group set off a bomb in the WTC on February 26, 1993.  Weird, wild, stuff, to the curious at least.  Not so much for the media, but perhaps they were distracted by the Waco standoff that began only days after the first WTC attack.

But the passage of time is producing more history.   About a year ago it was revealed that the FBI's Los Angeles office might have had a mole in contact with bin Laden way back in the early 90s:

On Wednesday, though, U.S. law enforcement sources were looking into a report in the The Washington Times and then elsewhere that the FBI had actively placed the source in direct contact with bin Laden and hid that fact from both the 9/11 Commission and congressional investigators. In fact, testimony in the lawsuit indicates the source had already met with bin Laden by the time an FBI agent recruited him.

In January 1993, a month before the first World Trade Center bombing, FBI agent Bassem Youssef began recruiting two sources from Los Angeles with strong ties to Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called “Blind Sheikh” who masterminded that first attack on New York City, Youssef testified nearly four years ago in his discrimination case against the FBI. Within two years, one of the sources was handing over “highly sensitive information on the entire network in the U.S. as well as abroad,” Youssef told a federal jury in Washington on Sept. 15, 2010.

None of this was in the commission report because the FBI deemed it irrelevant. Today, another revelation emerged:

An American citizen who underwent al Qaeda training only to later quit the extremist group revealed he was asked to carry out a mid-air assassination against Hosni Mubarak back in 1995. Ihab Mohammad Ali, testifying against alleged al Qaeda leader Khaled al-Fawwaz, says he was asked by Osama bin Laden to use his private plane to ram a plane carrying the Egyptian president.

'It took me by surprise,' said 52-year old Ali while testifying in New York federal court. 'I responded, "Well, wouldn't I be killing myself?"'

Weird.  So there was an unknown mole named Youseff and a terrorist named Yousef, and now an unknown mole named Mohammad Ali and a triple agent named Ali Mohammad.  Scant few Google stories on Ihab Mohammad Ali, odd considering his aviation and terrorist background:

Ali, who had also instructed members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a group that was later absorbed into al Qaeda, on reading flight maps and interpreting air traffic control radio transmissions. The group claimed responsibility for various bombings and attacks throughout the 1990s while it was fighting the Mubarak regime.

That would be the same EIJ who sent some leaders to Baghdad for a meeting before the US invaded in 2003.  The same EIJ who sent anthrax scare letters to Canadian authorities before 9/11 and before the US anthrax letter attacks.

So with all the talk since 9/11 of planes being used as weapons here's a pilot named Mohammad Ali, an EIJ terrorist who hobnobbed with bin Laden and taught jihadists about aviation and interpreting ATC lingo (which could come in handy in a 9/11 type attack) and the public has never been told until now.

It's a big story, after all, a plot to crash his aircraft into Hosni Mubarek's jet in 1995, performing a suicide attack at altitude (gotta love Ali's alleged response). Sounds kind of far-fetched, but then again so did Jack Cashill and James Sanders' scenario in their book "First Strike" about the demise of TWA 800 back in 1996.  If Ali is correct, the terrorists were actually discussing the Cashill/Sanders theory a year before 800.  Not fit to print, though.

At any rate, if this slow-walking history from the 90s seems strange it's really not.  Perhaps one day the true path to 9/11 will become clear but one thing seems clear already--especially with certain political figures from the 90s still vying for ultimate power--it's going to remain slow for awhile.

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?