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.
An unidentified man was sucked out of a passenger jet at 14,000 feet after a suspected bomb blasted a hole through the side of the fuselage just five minutes after the Airbus A321 took off from Mogadishu.
Eyewitnesses claim the badly burned body of an elderly man fell to the earth about 15 miles away from the airport at the time of the blast.
Horrible. Of course due to the location on the aircraft there's little speculation it was anything other than a bomb--even the captain didn't mince words:
Capt. Vlatko Vodopivec, the pilot, said he and others were told the explosion was caused by a bomb.
"It was my first bomb; I hope it will be the last," Vodopivec told the AP by phone from Mogadishu. He said the blast happened when the plane was at around 11,000 feet and still climbing to its cruising altitude of 30,000 feet.
Shortly before he was caught, Ramzi Yousef was perfecting micro seat bombs using Casio watches for timers so he could place bombs on aircraft on one leg and have them blow up on the next leg, after he had exited. Philippine Airlines 434 was his test run. The "Bojinka" plot of the mid 90s would have used eleven of them simultaneously exploding on US carriers over the Pacific. Thankfully it was thwarted, although it didn't wake up the public very much.
But Yousef and Uncle KSM weren't the first. There were several terrorist bombs in the 80s, including TWA 840, which blew four passengers out of the aircraft on a flight from Rome to Athens, Greece. Bomb maker Abu Ibrahim, now in his 70s, is still on the FBI's wanted list for helping construct similar devices--he was last seen in Iraq (where he held a long association).
By the way, the passenger who was ejected from the Daallo Airlines flight does not necessarily have to be the perpetrator, authorities are likely checking to see who was on the previous flight in that same seat or whether someone from the ground crew could have done it. Still, it's likely this shows that once these terrorists get set on something they never give up.
The deadly 9/11 terror attacks were devised by former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden after he was inspired by a pilot who crashed a plane into the ocean in 1999, it has emerged.
When bin Laden heard the murder-suicide on EgyptAir Flight 990 had killed 217 people, including 100 Americans, the terrorist strongman said: 'Why didn't he crash into a building?'
This conversation supposedly occurred in 1999. Which is interesting, because the FBI had information off Yousef's captured laptop dating to 1994 that talked of crashing an aircraft into CIA HQ. After capture KSM gave up more details about the "planes operation", detailed here in the 9/11 Commission Report:
KSM claims that the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center taught him that bombs and explosives could be problematic, and that he needed to graduate to a more novel form of attack. He maintains that he and Yousef began thinking about using aircraft as weapons while working on the Manila air/Bojinka plot, and speculated about striking the World Trade Center and CIA headquarters as early as 1995.
In other words, this recent bin Laden story sounds like BS. Since it came from the AQ magazine, that makes it even more likely.
The question is why, and why now? KSM is still languishing at GTMO with no hope of a trial until Obama leaves office, if then, so he poses no threat from a competitive jihadist standpoint. A more realistic explanation is that AQ is just trying to put another halo on their deceased hero's head to enhance weak recruitment as compared to ISIS. That is, unless it's one of their harbingers.
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.
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.
It's tempting to lay this story on the Obama people. After all, they just made a nuclear deal with a country that has apparently released five top AQ operatives being held under house arrest in exchange for one of their diplomats captured in Yemen by AQ.
It sounds bad. It may end up being bad. But there's a slim possibility it's not all bad. Iran has released AQ operatives under house arrest before, including bin Laden's son Saad, some of whom were later killed or captured. One of the Khorasan members operating in Syria and recently killed were previously held in Iran as well.
A lot depends on how this deal was done. Evidently they were negotiating with someone in AQ, who had the Iranian diplomat under control somewhere. And the five operatives have apparently not been swapped to anyone, only released from their house arrest. They may still be in Iran, or may be trying to sneak away.
But if there was a deal done, say a side deal as part of Iran's agreement to the nuke deal (and us freeing up over a billion they can use to fund their own proxy terrorists), this may have been the way it was done. Obviously Iran cannot be seen handing over AQ terrorists to AQ nor can the West be seen making deals with terrorist masters for other terrorist hostages in exchange for more money for their own terrorists.
So the jury is still out. If there was a deal it's probably not unprecedented--Pakistan evidently took out a long-wanted AQ operative in their country last year only days after a Pakistani general came to Washington to collect on millions in aid money for the Pakistani Army. Adnan el-Shukrijumah was a reported high level operative, pilot, and someone the government called very dangerous. He had been wanted since 9/11 (according to the FBI he is still wanted). Then suddenly after some money changed hands he was reported to be pushing up daisies. Funny how that works.
But that's the way this entire war on terrorism has worked...bodies of lies interspersed within truths and half-truths. It appears some countries are not only holding US citizens and other westerners as hostages, but also holding AQ members for ransom as well. Maybe Iran got what they wanted in the deal and part of it was them quietly releasing all their AQ hole cards so we can have access to kill them.
Or maybe this is just another in-your-face-Obama move by the Ayatollahs after they got their deal, like sending General Quds Force to Moscow to make a deal with Putin on Assad in Syria while knowing our position is that he 'must go'. Or telling the press that Israel will be gone in 25 years, praise Allah, death to America. Guess we will see.
Many reports have characterized the largely Syrian refugees flowing like a river into Europe as "military-aged males". Indeed, that's certainly what it would appear from the media images.
Assuming that to be true, why is the United States letting military-aged males escape from Syria? Isn't the US strategy to "train and equip" such males to fight for their country so our soldiers don't have to fight for their country?
Instead everyone is bending over backwards to resettle these military-aged males from Syria into the West. Which theoretically suggests there will be no effective fighting force to muster against Assad, who has now invited Putey Poot to send troops and equipage to fight for him knowing we dare not risk any engagement. Seems Trump has a point about our leadership. That is, unless they are doing this deliberately.
MORE 9/13/15
CNN is falling all over itself praising Germany for being so kind to the Islamic fighting-aged refugees flowing into their country. In the screen shot below notice the headline. But notice the breaking news headline bar above it. Whoops.
Another defeat in Iraq, another round of taxpayer-funded mechanized military hardware in the hands of ISIS:
A Pentagon spokesman, Col. Steve Warren, estimated that a half dozen tanks were abandoned, a similar number of artillery pieces, a larger number of armored personnel carriers and about 100 wheeled vehicles like Humvees. He said some of the vehicles were in working condition; others were not because they had not been moved for months.
Now we have to blow it all up. But according to Josh Earnest that's just a 'setback', we are winning otherwise. So don't let your hair catch fire. Unless you're an ISIS hostage in a cage, in which case you're screwed.
Pretty amazing considering recent events--reminiscent of a certain infamous political figure, but here's the bottom line: as long as public opinion polls say no more ground troops in Iraq the president doesn't have to do squat. Everyone knows he doesn't have a strategy TO WIN; such a strategy would be dangerous and costly. So he has a strategy--it's called throwing BS around, pretending there is a viable coalition, doing some raids and air cover for the hapless Iraqis while trying to keep the Iranians at bay and negotiating on nukes, all of which acts to run out the clock through 2017. If ISIS succeeds in pulling off a domestic terrorist attack, blame Bush, unless it's something like this, which would change public opinion on boots. And they could still blame Bush. Yes, they are that craven.
Meanwhile in the housekeeping department, apparently the King of Clubs may not be so dead after all (unless this new Izzat is the look-alike phony). Word is the Iraqi government could not verify his death through DNA because they lacked samples. Wonder if Mubarak al-Douri might be able to help?
We also await the formal announcement of the death of AQ number three Adnan Shukrijumah, reported deceased last year in Pakistan, while his face is still on the FBI most-wanted page. Why is this? If it's about a DNA match, at last check his family still lives in Florida.
This story is making the rounds with peculiar wording, including on the Drudge Report:
Prominent online security expert claimed to have made one plane briefly fly sideways while he was a passenger on board, FBI investigation states
Emphasis added. How many people reading that actually believed the airplane was going along on a straight path then flew suddenly flew 'sideways', which technically would be, well, impossible? Here's how CBS explained:
During the interviews, "He stated that he successfully commanded the system he had accessed to issue the 'CLB' or climb command. He stated that he thereby caused one of the airplane engines to climb resulting in a lateral or sideways movement of the plane during one of these flights," said the affidavit, signed by F.B.I. agent Mike Hurley.
The documents say Roberts accesses the plane's controls via the in-flight entertainment system, his laptop, and an Ethernet cable.
Aside from the sensationalist nature of the revelation, his contention of hacking the flight computer and issuing a CLB command sounds like it would result in asymmetrical thrust. Literally flying 'sideways' is certainly not something an aircraft could do, at least not in the world of elementary math and 90 degree angles. A yaw condition would be something else, assuming this actually happened.
Keep in mind this takeover revelation comes from Mr. Roberts, not the airline. And it comes from the court releasing an FBI affidavit, which also reads like a warning to everyone about how good the Bureau is at uncovering everything ever done on any PC, which they surely don't mind being out there in cyberland. There was no mention of the flight Mr. Roberts allegedly took over. Also, it's not known whether his hacked command input actually led to a thrust increase or whether it was coincidental.
Whatever the case, the FBI seems more interested in getting him in jail than using his information. It will be interesting to see what happens to a guy who appears to be a cross between Duck Dynasty and Spook Central. Surely he will ask for a jury trial if it goes that far.
Of course this possible revelation opens a number of worm cans. First and foremost, the 9/11 truthers will be pointing to it as incontrovertible evidence the aircraft were remotely controlled and flown into the buildings by Dick Cheney (there will be no links here). In a more recent story it could explain, in a SPECTRE kind of way, the disappearance of MH370. Presumably also led by Dick Cheney in retirement.
And it may also come into the discussion about the overspeed crash of Amtrak 188 in North Philly. This tragedy occurred only one day after ISIS had issued an online cyber-threat promising something that would "surprise" the infidels (for liberals reading, that means non-Islamic westerners like you). There are several reasons they might issue a specious threat, such as watching to see how internet and security professionals reacted to prepare contingency plans, but then again, maybe there was something to it.
Whether the news on Saturday about a risky attack in Syria where the US Military targeted ONE GUY--and one guy few had ever heard of before--has anything to do with this is unknown. Until the raid most knew the name Abu Sayyaf as the AQ terror franchise in the Far East. Risky raids just to capture or kill one unknown guy don't seem to be the hallmark of the Obama administration--how would they have explained mission failure/capture? There are things we don't know, and won't know. Sometimes for the good.
As in the 'Prophet' Mohammad. Many mainstream media reporters are using that descriptive term in their reportage on the shooting event in Garland Texas. It's like saying "Lord and Savior" Jesus Christ in a story on Christianity.
Anyway, the mainstream coverage is predictable.
CNN, other than calling Mohammad 'the Prophet' (capitalized-- and how long before they include 'peace be upon him') is explaining why Muslims don't like anyone to produce images of the Prophet.. it's blasphemy. Oh, and Geller's group is a 'hate group' according to the hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center. Don't say it out loud, but they had it coming!
NBC makes a point to mention the extremists (no, not Geller's people) were using 'assault rifles', which illustrates the barbarity while opening the gun control door just a crack.
CBS has a huge headline mentioning 'the Prophet' Mohammad. Otherwise it's pretty fair so far.
ABC seems to have the most fair and balanced coverage of the legacy outlets, using the word 'prophet' in coverage but NOT in capital letters, as in "Islam's prophet Mohammad". Nice job. Their story on one of the perps is standard breaking news.
The WaPo informs readers of the incendiary Pamela Geller and her status with the SPLC. Does the SPLC consider Charlie Hebdo a hate group?
Finally, the Paper of Record pulls a story out of their archives about the 'firebrand' Geller, to accompany their normal coverage.
Overall not surprising. We'll see if it gets any worse, if and when the Islamic extremist apologists feel it's safe to pop up out of their holes and call this "hate" or even white privilege (never underestimate the far left).
As for Geller, my own personal opinion isn't very high on her but that's neither her nor there. She had a free speech rally knowing Muslims would be offended and lo and behold a few showed up and started shooting, which proves her point.
As to whether these two were actual members of ISIS or wannabes claiming allegiance, time will tell. The authorities have poo-poo'ed the Judicial Watch report about an ISIS camp near Anapra, Mexico and this may or may not be involved. It doesn't really matter. The bottom line is, as the former CIA Deputy Director recently admitted, the terrorists were never 'on the run'. That's why they described Benghazi as they did. It's a continuing problem that's not going anywhere no matter what Westerners do or say, short of widespread conversion.
We've seen a recent rash of reports on most-wanted terrorists and enablers going tango uniform. Are they real?
For instance, before Christmas it was reported that AQ number three Adnan Shukrijumah, known also as "Jafar the Pilot", considered a particularly dangerous terrorist, was killed by Pakistani troops in a raid in Pakistan (shortly after the US promised another large sum of support money to that country). After a few weeks Shukrijumah disappeared off the Rewards for Justice site run by the State Department, but he still appears on the FBI's most-wanted terrorist list. Reasons--they are still confirming it. Rather amazing, since they had the body and DNA testing doesn't take that long. Just think back to bin Laden, it was done almost immediately. Not sure why they wouldn't have shouted it from the rooftops the day after. Instead the administration didn't want anything to do with any questions about it.
Also, there was the long sought-after former second in command of the Iraqi Ba'ath regime, Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, who was reported to be helping ISIS. He was reported killed in a shelling near Tikrit about a week ago. It made a flurry of news, then quickly vaporized from the news cycle. The Iraqi government was supposed to be doing DNA testing to confirm. In the interim a Shiite Hizballah group has claimed it's "100 percent" certain it was him based on their own tests. You can view the corpse here--does this really look like the body of an over 70 year old man? No bruises or bullet holes. Does it bear a perfect resemblance to Izzat? Not really, but there is some. Al-Duri was a rare Arab redhead, but keep in mind old Jihadists often die their beards red. And again, the administration downplayed any questions from the press about him rather than doing the usual end-zone dance. His loss would seemingly be a big blow to ISIS, yet nothing. Strange.
Finally the news today that the US blew away two most-wanted AQ terrorists, Adam aka "Azzam the American" Gadahn, and Ahmed Farouq, both American citizens on the wanted list. Both were hit in separate non-targeted drone strikes on AQ camps--somewhere--they aren't saying very much. The American hostage Warren Weinstein was also killed in the Farouq raid, which prompted a sort of unusual apology today from the president, taking great pains to convey that he was responsible and where the buck stopped, as if this wasn't already a given. Of course it has never been a given, which is why this was weird.
The White House presser today was fairly weird as well, with Josh Earnest promising unbelievable awesome transparency on the record about these deaths, then proceeding to provide almost no details about the raids due to operational security concerns. Many journalists quizzed Earnest on whether the kills were within US law. Maybe Loretta Lynch will decide this, after she gets through deciding on prosecuting Lois Lerner or investigating Hillary's shenanigans. In reality it's possible he was trying to explain the tragic loss without admitting they are casualties of 'war', because the 'wars' are over, responsibly ended by Obama. So if we aren't at war, why are we still air-raiding villages and killing civilians?
One factoid--Mr Weinstein was mentioned many times by AQ leader Ayman Zawahiri, demanding captured AQ terrorists in exchange among other concessions, so it will be interesting to see whether the secrecy and stealth used today, and perhaps the reason they announced this today after 3 months, has something to do with pinpointing AQ Numero Uno and not just covering some hiney.
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.
Watch State Dept spokesbuffy Marie Harf react to a simple question today about the Middle East..
Nothing to see move along!
Of course she immediately knew the implication of a question about Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia meeting together to discuss an alliance without United States involvement--Iran. They seem very sensitive about this.
If you want to know what's actually important right now look at what the Obama-approved media isn't harping on: Iran is closing in on a deal that would almost surely allow them to keep their nuclear program, a deal which if signed would make it harder for Israel to take them out in a bombing raid, and not only due to possible threats such as this, but just based on being called an international pariah and sanctioned by the UN.
At the same time Iran has 1) helped Bashar Assad remain in power (the guy whose days were once said to be "numbered" by the administration), 2) almost certainly helped the Houthi rebels take over Yemen, which just normalized air traffic between San'a and Tehran, 3) continued to fund Hizballah and HAMAS while now providing military assistance via the IRGC to the Iraqi Army in their offensive to retake Tikrit. It's as if we're now BFF with the Iranians. At what point do they get removed from the list of state-sponsors of terrorism?
While doing all of this they've also managed to blow up a mock US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf while burning a figure of the president in effigy (along with their usual 'death to America' chants). More importantly they've managed to scare Netanyahu into flying to Washington to give a speech about the dangers of all of this.
Yet despite all the red flashing lights the American people largely couldn't give two hoots. They are severely war weary, which Obama knows, which is why Netanyahu decided to come and speak, which is why the Obama cabinet was dispatched out of town for the Bibi speech, with an even bigger middle finger message sent by John Kerry, who will be talking to the Iranians the very same day. Netanyahu is almost getting the Tea Party treatment (the real terrorists). Hey LA Times--let's see that Rashid Khalidi video, how about it?
So yeah, this administration rilly, rilly wants a nuke deal with Iran. Seemingly at almost any price. Yes, we all realize these things are too nuanced for dunce conservative bloggers to understand; that when the dust settles Iran will have been bitch-slapped into lowered sanctions while retaining their nuclear program. To most people this will sound like paying sticker price for a car but to our super genius negotiators and the press it will be the biggest peace deal in our time, just in time for Hillary.
Of course, if Iran keeps their program and gets lowered sanctions while Israel's hands are tied, and we allow Tehran to project its image all over the Middle East, including taking over Iraq, Syria and Yemen, well, that unconseqential non-story about Sunnis that Marie Harf tried to dismiss today will become front page news.
TAKE THE DEAL, IT'LL BE GREAT!
Obama talked to Reuters today and telegraphed his willingness to make an Iran nuke deal, practically begging the Iranians to do it.
He assured Americans that after any deal that 'inspectors' will be able to keep them honest, even though inspectors are saying Iran is not being honest right now. And it's not like international inspections weren't a joke in Iraq and Libya.
So let's think about this. How can the administration NOT end up with a deal, after two busted self-imposed deadlines and after throwing a flag on Bibi for interference? Obama is on record of saying he has a firm commitment that he will do everything possible to keep Tehran from going nukular, but everybody including the Iranians knows this does not include a military option. It just doesn't. Even if Obama wanted it the American peeps would balk. He has less than two years left and he's not about to open a can whoop-anything on anyone.
So, lacking a deal and no military option he'd have no choice but to re-impose sanctions. Iran would go back to using their proxies to destabilize the region, a region where they now exert even more influence, including over Iraq and their oil. Obama would not take much of an immediate political hit for a failed deal followed by re-imposing sanctions because the mainstream media would cover his backside, but in the real world the Ayatollahs would emerge with their nuclear weapons program, more regional control, and a bigger swarth than ever before.
Netanyahu, assuming he's still in power, would almost surely have to attempt to take out the nukes before Obama's term expires, which could get a little messy. But even if Bibi doesn't win and an Israeli dove lap-dog PM gets elected, there's the specter of that Sunni alliance Marie Harf was trying to downplay today and the resultant nuclear arms race it could produce. Obama desperately needs a deal to make it to January 2017. A deal kicks the can but it conceivably holds off the Israelis, the Sunnis, and the Republicans.
While Bush haters, 9/11 truthers, and transparency lovers push for the release of the 28 pages from a 2003 Senate report that many believe will implicate the Saudis in 9/11, there's another trove of yet-to-be-analyzed docs that may shed some light on the GWoT: the bin Laden docs captured at Abbotabad.
Some of them trickled out a few years ago and a few more came out recently in the NYC trial of yet another African Embassy bomber suspect. Here's the Long War Journal:
“Our groups inside Afghanistan are the same for every season for many years now,” Rahman wrote. “We have groups in Bactria, Bactica, Khost, Zabul, Ghazni and [Wardak] in addition to the battalion in Nuristan and Kunz,” the US government’s translation reads. Bactria and Bactica are probably poor translations of Paktia and Paktika, two provinces where al Qaeda’s allies are known to have a strong presence. Also, Kunz is likely Kunar.
Therefore, Rahman indicated that al Qaeda had a presence in at least eight Afghan provinces.
The size of these “groups” was not disclosed. But earlier in the letter, Rahman mentioned that al Qaeda has “a full battalion in Nuristan and Kunar.” A translator or analyst from the US government estimated that this battalion consisted of “around 70 individuals.”
In other words, the notion that "Core AQ" has been run out of Afghanistan into the Pakistan-drone kill box only to be 'decimated' might not be exactly true.
Other docs mention ties to Iran, if only from an enemy of my enemy fashion. Here's Stephen Hayes:
Hayes said the initial "scrub" of the bin Laden documents by the CIA was very successful, producing 400 intelligence reports and leading to U.S. actions around the world against al Qaeda.
"Then it all stopped. The CIA basically sat on the documents. ...
I think it's because the Obama administration didn't want to know what was in them," said Hayes, adding that the documents would have had "tremendous implications" for U.S. foreign policy overall.
"Once you've exposed these documents in al Qaeda's own hand, it requires the administration to act on them. And the president's argument all along has been that the war on terror is ending," said Hayes.
Emphasis added. It's appropriate that Hayes is weighing in here--he was at the forefront to get the captured Iraqi regime documents released. Eventually they were, via a DoD web portal, only to be shut down later after the New York Times used them to reprint some sensitive nuclear information. Who knows what else those docs might show. But by all means, we need those 28 pages!
Of course Hayes and his friend Joscelyn, along with Fox and other conservatives, were among the only outlets to report the suggested bin Laden connection with Iran...
Maybe that's because the mainstreamers want nothing to do with upending Obama's legacy project of normalizing relations with both commie Cuba and radical Iran (with neither of them reforming first). Today we learn the new rulers of Yemen have approved direct flights from Iran. So it appears our government has picked a devil in dealing with the other devils. Maybe there are some documents supporting that premise somewhere.
The brouhaha continues over what America should call the violent extremists wreaking havoc across Arabia in the name of Islam. Reacting to the criticism mainly from the right, Obama and his press staff have lately been twisting themselves into pretzels trying to pretend there is no Islamic connection to Islamic terrorism. Who knows whether they truly believe that or are just trying to punt the problem to Billary or Bush III.
But the words spoken in his recent Countering Violent Extremism conference (which was supposed to blur the lines by also pointing to domestic right wing terrorists as well) suggest the president might be going off the deep end with his blind apologias coming down through the clouds from his judgmental perch atop Mt Nuance.
Here's what he said about the role of Muslims in the founding of America:
He seems to be saying Muslims were involved in the very founding of this nation. Not to say there weren't any Islamic immigrants in the late 1700s, there just weren't enough to make much of an impact on the founding. Of course he knows this.
As a professor he also knows that America's first real engagement with organized Islam occurred when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the Envoy from Tripoli to Great Britain, who schooled them about paying the jizya tax if we expected our new independent American-flagged merchant vessels to get a free pass into and out of the Mediterranean:
That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
So in truth our first significant encounter with Islam was defeating violent extremists in North Africa legitimizing their barbarity through the Koran, which led to several Barbary Wars against terror. In other words, nothing much has changed since then, except the players.
Of course this is a piece of history that our lecturer-in-chief will not expose because it might suggest that a fundamental interpretation of Islam calls for people to do exactly as the Barbary Pirates and AQ and ISIS have done. And it will continue to happen unless, as Egyptian PM al-Sissi has suggested, a reformation occurs within Islam. Maybe the president can't admit that (he can only condemn Christians) but living in denial will not change anything either.
But maybe he's not living in denial. Maybe, with no more elections to win and the likelihood of no more major quasi-socialist policy initiatives being passed through Congress to pad his legacy, Obama has nothing left but to troll the GOP in search of incendiary reactions the Democrats can then use as fund-raising fodder. Would he stoop so low to play games with national security like that? You be the judge.
But it seems clear he was playing games with the Executive Actions on pardoning millions of illegal aliens, which almost surely had to be intentionally messed up--nobody could be that stupid. If so, the only explanation that makes sense is that he was throwing it against the wall knowing it would be struck down only to get juicy "anti-immigrant" sound bites that Wasserman-Shultz could use as more fund-raising fodder to stoke up donors for Billary along with producing anger throughout the illegal alien community. especially when the GOP fails to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
What the heck is the NY Times doing? This is the second major story they've printed in the past six months about WMDs being found in Iraq..
The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
Now let's be clear, nobody is saying these were the stockpiles of WMDs Bush and most of the western powers were using as a casus belli for war. At the same time, the conventional wisdom hasn't changed since 2008 and it states that Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house and there were no WMDs found in Iraq. None, nada, zilch. Then along comes the Times...
The analysis of sarin samples from 2005 found that the purity level reached 13 percent — higher than expected given the relatively low quality and instability of Iraq’s sarin production in the 1980s, officials said. Samples from Boraks recovered in 2004 had contained concentrations no higher than 4 percent.
The new data became grounds for concern. “Borak rockets will be more hazardous than previously assessed,” one internal report noted. It added a warning: the use of a Borak in an improvised bomb “could effectively disperse the sarin nerve agent.”
Of course none of which Saddam declared to Hans Blix before the invasion.
So two questions. One, with ex-Ba'athist regime thugs reportedly working with ISIS on military strategies what are the chances they've stashed some of this material away for later use, perhaps even privately threatening to use it here or there if we do this or that? That could explain the presidential foot-dragging, assuming one were inclined to believe Obama has a desire not to foot drag.
Two, how will this go over politically? The Washington Post is already asking how Jeb Bush will handle his brother's failure to find WMDs in Iraq, but that would also bring in Hillary's yes vote in 2002. Many experts believe Hillary lost to Obama in 2008 because of her Iraq vote. Would she dare come out and blame her vote on Jeb's brother, especially with some WMDs found in Iraq and stuff like this still on the internet?
Maybe a revelation about some WMDs being found in Iraq helps. She's a hawk figure and a lawyer, she could craftily say Duyba and Cheney still misled her but she also knew there was some danger there, therefore she and the First Man are the only candidates able to fix it, etc. Might work. Why else would the Times pursue this?
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.
Not surprisingly he's pissed about his pilot, and some reports say he's ready to strap in a fighter jet and do a few sorties himself.
But maybe, after the initial anger subsides, someone can ask about this...
She is the daughter of one of the most notorious dictators in the world, and a woman who has openly pledged her support for ISIS. But that doesn't mean Raghad Saddam Hussein doesn't have an eye for design, as she hopes to prove with her new jewellery range - complete with pieces unshamedly inspired by her despot father, as well as the husband he had murdered.
The Daily Mail asks, why is she still there? Raghad was the subject of a Interpol Red Notice several years ago, and was listed on Iraq's most-wanted terrorist list. But here she is, living the QVC Kardashian life in Amman, Jordan, while praising ISIS and dropping more clues about their origins:
She expressed delight after militants captured Tikrit, her father’s hometown, last year, telling Jordanian newspaper Al-Quds: 'These are victories of my father’s fighters and my uncle Izzat Al-Douri.'
Does the fact Jordan won't give her up suggest they might fear a reaction from the hinterlands about sending a Hussein back to the Persians? Or is it that that she's a dangerous character with some kind of dangerous leverage? Or she herself is leverage against their neighbors? Or is it just mercy for a spoiled twit who wouldn't understand the game of Risk much less be able to run a country or an insurgency?
Someone could ask. After all, someone thought she was worth putting on a list and she seems to have an endless supply of cash and that whole affair with her husband defecting to...Jordan, back in 1995, was just plain weird.
"I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL," Obama said, referring to the Islamic State group.
An area of compromise, according to AP reporter Julie Pace. Sounds more like a naked attempt to drag the GOP Congress back into Iraq and get them on the hook should the degrading and destroying not be complete before 2016. They signed onto the old one (where did it go) but that war was 'ended' responsibly, perhaps one of the greatest accomplishments of the Obama administration. Yeah, so that's a lot of hangout for the Dems if things don't go well over the next 18 months.
Anyway, we'll see if the previews match the puff and pageantry.
Dick Cheney, the former US vice-president, suggested waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner whom White House officials suspected might possess knowledge of a potential connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, it has emerged.
Two senior intelligence officials said that the April 2003 request was made regarding Muhammed Khudayr al-Dulaymi, head of the M-14 section of the Mukhabarat secret police, whose responsibilities included chemical weapons and contacts with terrorist groups.
This story was covered here at the time. There wasn't much on the web on Khudair Dulaimi then--nothing has changed today, although the Emptywheel did a "what happened to.." story on him back in August. They don't know much either.
An earlier Telegraph story from 2003 suggested he was an important thug in Saddam's crime family and perhaps an outreach link between the regime and terrorists, which is no doubt why Cheney's office had interest.
He also worked closely with the Saddam Fedayeen and foreign fighters in the run-up to war, building the contacts vital for the resistance.
Of course the notion that Saddam would even allow an AQ-like figure in his country is preposterous! We all know he had no use for terrorists. Curiously the Telegraph piece mentions the following:
His name is on a second, unpublished, list of most-wanted Iraqis who do not appear in the original deck of cards of 55 former regime leaders, although no photograph has been circulated.
Hmm, that's news. Who else was on the second secret list? Was it people involved in this? Here's the final sentence, rather prescient:
Documents found in the suitcase of Saddam's vice-president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, when he was captured last month detailed plans by Ba'athist cells for establishing links with radical Islamic leaders and reorganising the party.
And that's exactly what Izzat al-Duri and friends have done.
Anyway, despite a lack of reporting we have a few scraps to puzzle over. The 2003 Telegraph article dated September gives no indication Dulaimi was in captivity, matter of fact quite the opposite, but the 2009 Telegraph story on Cheney's alleged request says he was in captivity in April 2003, or at least that's when the request was received. So one of them, at least, is wrong.
One can imagine that since he was also on some kind of double secret most-wanted list and no picture was ever distributed it's possible he never actually existed. Maybe he was made up by Iraqis interested in selling information. We could say the CIA made him up to justify the war and be right, according to most Democrats at least. Or maybe someone at Langley was trying to snooker Cheney. April 2003....that was about the same time Joe Plame Wilson was starting to whisper "Bush lied, people died" to Nicholas Kristof at the Times after his colleague Judy Miller found nothing much in Iraq. We all know what happened next.
If he did exist and was what they said he was, surely he was non-harshly interrogated and jailed, but it seems likely that had they found anything such as a link between Saddam and AQ other than that visit by Egyptian Islamic Jihad members to Baghdad before the invasion it would have been made public long ago. But it's hard to say. Maybe somebody can ask Cheney. Or maybe we can get George Ramos to ask Obama, since he's the only one with balls enough to ask real questions anymore.
IS THE GWOT OVER? 12/12/14
Listening to the screed from Feinstein announcing her release of the CIA hit job report (a remarkable journey into the world of hypocrisy and denial) the question should be asked--do these Democrats think the threats are over? Do they really believe Obama 2012? If another massive 9/11 scale attack were to happen tomorrow what would DiFi say about belly slapping KSM? It's as if some Democrats have gone bonkers since the mid-term shellacking.
Speaking of which, CNN had a top headline today about a gripping story that everyone is talking about-- Mohammed Atta in Prague.
A recently released CIA cable casts heavy doubt on a key claim used by the Bush administration to justify the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
It discounts intelligence that said Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 ringleaders, met with an Iraqi official in the Czech Republic a few months before the attacks.
The Bush administration -- which maintained that Atta had met with Iraqi agent Ahmad al-Anian in Prague in April 2001 -- had used the report to link the September 11 attacks to Iraq.
CIA Director John Brennan included a portion of the cable in a letter to Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan. Levin, the retiring chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, made the letter public on Thursday.
Well, it's nice to see Brennan included a "portion" of the cable in his release. Fact is Carl Levin has been pressing this for a long time and probably wants Cheney locked up. The thing is, the story was pretty much debunked a long time ago.
These Democrats and their sycophants in the media are so desirous for stories bashing Republicans they've resorted to re-hashing old bashes. At the same time they've almost completely ignored the Gruber hearing on Tuesday, the Benghazi hearing on Wednesday, and the latest revelations from Lerner's emails, Obama increasing troops in Iraq, Iran cheating on their nuke framework agreement, and the lies told about immigration. Utterly amazing. But it's worse--it's dangerous for America.
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.
