That was then...

John Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in 2012..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now this:

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

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

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

KERRY TODAY...

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

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

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

Does the pottery barn analogy apply here?

Aviation Update

Re MH17, the whole black box transfer thing was bizarre, almost something one would see in a James Bond movie where thugs hand over the boxes to the third world government rep...

According to a Kiev paper (if it can be believed), part of the deal was that Malaysian officials would give the boxes to an entity that Russia favored:

As part of the deal brokered by Borodai and a Malaysia delegation that included at least one member of the country's national security council, Malaysia must in turn hand over the black boxes to aviation experts favored by Russia to examine them.

Where is Steven Segal when ya need him? 

Meanwhile, the bodies are being sent somewhere in non-rebel Ukraine for identification.  No word on whether there will be autopsies to check for explosive residue and foreign objects common to missiles, which seems a necessary part of any investigation.  Then again, this isn't anything close to any usual investigation.

The US plans to release data supporting its missile theory sometime today, which will probably line up with summary views of some of the aircraft parts that seem consistent with missile damage.  The FDR/CVR probably won't show anything but a sudden loss of data anyway.  Everybody knows this was a missile. 

God be with those poor families having to go through this nightmare.

----

Further south in another war zone, word is out this morning that Delta has canceled all flights in and out of Tel Aviv Ben Gurion due a a HAMAS rocket that landed nearby.  US Airways also canceled today's flight.  And United as well.  Not surprising considering what happened in Ukraine, but also a huge victory for the terrorists.  Keeping commercial US flights--and the cargo they carry--out of Tel Aviv is both an economic and symbolic victory that can put pressure on Bibi's government.  No doubt they will try to land a few more rockets there if they can after such a swift retreat.    

BOTH WAYS   7/23/14

Is it just a simple public safety reason that compelled airlines and now FAA to ban commercial air carrier operations into Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv or something more?   Impossible to say.   Seems the decision as to whether to fly or not could have been made by the airlines.   Having it made by the government brings into play politics.

For instance, the interesting part of today's State Dept press conference was the spoxgirl's reaction to questions about it the ban.  She was pre-emptively defensive, lecturing reporters that there were no American tanks in Baghdad they were entitled to their opinions but not their own facts.   Her main talking point was that the ban would end should Israel agree to a cease-fire.

When pressed by Fox for a comment about Senator Cruz' allegation that it was 'economic blackmail' the spoxgirl mocked Cruz and urged him to check the facts, which are basically unknowable without access to internal inter-agency deliberations.

One could speculate that the administration saw and opening and took it, ie, they realized they could justify the ban due to the HAMAS rocket (despite Iron Dome), knowing it would hurt Israel in the pocketbook and possible given them leverage into forcing a cease fire.  They've been running cover on Operation Sharp Edge (or whatever its called) for weeks, puppeting the line about Israel's right to self defense while simultaneously trying to appease angry Palestinians with weasel talk in the process.  But John Kerry's alleged faux pax on Fox, where he complained about "a helluva pinpoint operation", ie, that's what was agreed to between the two, strongly suggests this ban is a retaliation.  At least one could speculate as much.    

GOOD GRIEF 7/24/14

Stories abound that the missing Algerian MD-83 has been found crashed, yet several observers are not convinced. The search resumes at first light.   There was weather in the area and reports are that the aircraft deviated, but without more info its pointless to speculate.  The area it supposedly crashed in is another war zone, this time with AQIM fighters.

As to the Israel-FAA flight ban, yet another brouhaha.  The president was asked about the safety of the area today by a CNBC reporter and proceeded to immediately defend himself over the political angle without even being attacked.   The State Dept admitted today that the decision was inter-agency, meaning it could have been political.  But it's impossible to prove.   Netanyahu was reportedly outraged, so Cruz has that going for him.   It seems to be one of those events where all parties can spin a political rationale and their opponents can't prove them wrong.

I'd Play Golf, Too

It's funny to watch the redheaded spokeswoman at the State Dept try to tamp down what appears to be absolute mass chaos around the world.  They tell em in media training, keep smiling! 

But in reality there's not much to smile about.  Smart Power seems to be running low on solar cells at every turn.  In the north the Russians just put Ukraine on a pre-payment system for gas supply and sent them a bill, which means they're in default because they haven't paid lately.  A Ukrainian transport plane was just shot down and Russian tanks were seen being slipped across the border and given to the 'rebels' there.  But that crisis is over because the media has lost interest. 

In Iraq there's a new crisis with bizarre scenarios that so defy imagination that nobody could have seen them coming except the Long War Journal.  Sunni jihadists, who've been part of the 'rebels' fighting Assad and Iran in Syria with our de facto help, have suddenly hacked and chopped their way towards Baghdad chasing a Shiite-heavy army shedding its uniforms, guns, tanks and perhaps even Stinger missiles on their way south.   They are being helped by some of Cheney's dead-enders we eliminated back in 2003.  Speaking of Assad, he's now launching air strikes in.... Iraq, targeting the terrorists we're helping in Syria to target him. This is blow back on steroids. 

What to do?  Well, whenever there's a crisis this administration immediately sends out the young smiling faces to tell us everything is fine and that we're giving peace a chance, usually with a fancy diplomatic meeting in a snazzy hotel in Geneva complete with warm croissants and Dom Perignon 56--vegan choices available.  As to those staff seen leaving our embassy at Fort Baghdad, they are only going on sight-seeing trips around the region and will be replaced by other 'staff', sometimes known as US Marines. 

But they are not technically boots on the ground because the embassy is our ground and besides, Iraq was a dumb war and Bush's mistake will never be erased from history even if Hillary and Kerry pretend they never voted for it.  And there's no military solution for this or any problem on earth, that is, unless we lose a military engagement to the bad guys, at which point Bush is right over there, throw a shoe at him.


There must be somewhere to turn for help.  Why yes, eastward, to the people yelling "Death to America!"  When the Ayatollahs start looking friendly enough to qualify as the enemy of our enemy we're in trouble. What next, Mookie al-Sadr in front of the embassy throwing flowers and waving the American flag welcoming us back?  Sheer madness. 


Go west, young man.  Except when you go west you'll see the Palestinians have formed a 'technocratic' unity government that includes HAMAS but doesn't include them because that would be illegal as America designates them as terrorists and we don't deal with terrorists (until we do, at which point the mainstream media will show up to lecture us on the nuances) so we couldn't technically talk to the new government, wink, wink, nod, nod. 

Meanwhile the Israelis are busy sweeping up the usual suspects all over the Holy Land after the kidnapping of three teenagers, including one with American citizenship.  Word is Obama has already agreed to give up KSM and the Blind Shiekh in return for the teen as soon as he finds out which terrorist organization has them.  After all, those guys are old and washed up like Bill Ayers. 

Further south the American Army captured Joseph Kony in Africa!  Wait, sorry, there was a terrorist attack in Kenya where ali-Shabbob killed about 50 guys committing the crime of watching soccer and failing an Islam quiz.   

Back around to the east the Pakistanis are opening a can on the Taliban after their recent attacks on Karachi.  Guess they couldn't find anyone in Qatar to watch over them.  Even further east they still haven't found MH370.  The way things are going it won't be surprising to hear it's flying AWACs missions for the Chinese Uighurs.

Lost in the shuffle of all this "AQ on the run" news was that the government seemed to know pretty quick that AQ factions were taking credit for Benghazi because they were announcing it over captured State Department cell phones.   It's all phony don't cha know. 

Closer to home the wave of illegal alien children being shipped north to run cover for an influx of sex workers across the secure Mexican border continues with no end in sight.  So let's do comprehensive immigration amnesty and punish those enemies!   Anyone who says otherwise hates children. 

And good Lord, the chaos even extends to Washington, DC of all places.  The IRS just notified Congress that it cannot even handle rudimentary data storage because apparently their Blue Wave email system running on Windows 3.1 failed causing the 20meg hard drive to freeze up, according to the WaPo.  No word on whether they will continue to be responsible for Obamacare compliance.  Maybe they can get some XP systems in there--evidently they are pretty cheap right now.  Anyway, this is serious, perhaps criminal, even if there's not a smidgen of official corruption.  At least one ex-reporter has asked real questions about the emails but she's likely 'one of them'.     

Whew.  So yeah, playing golf is certainly a better choice than keeping focused on all this ticky tack stuff, especially when there are important things like a war on women to be fought and climate change deniers to be denied. That is, unless the law-breaker guy is correct. 

[Ed-  Not trying to be insensitive.   Snark is the only way for some of us to process this insanity.]     

Crystal Clear as Mud

So let's get this straight.  After an Israeli Defense Minister popped off on the Israel-Palestinian secret peace dealings..

“In reality, there have been no negotiations between us and the Palestinians for all these months – but rather between us and the Americans. The only thing that can ‘save us’ is for John Kerry to win a Nobel Prize and leave us in peace.”

..the administration sprang into outrage mode...

“The remarks of the Defense Minister (Moshe Ya’alon), if accurate, are offensive and inappropriate especially given all that the United States is doing to support Israel’s security needs,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a brief statement that constituted a rare rebuke to close ally Israel.

“To question Secretary Kerry’s motives and distort his proposals is not something we would expect from the defense minister of a close ally,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Yet here's the same Jay Carney responding to a question about the blathering from Iran's president over figuratively kicking the West's ass in their non-secret secret nuclear deal:

"Jim, it's not surprising to us nor should it be to you that the Iranians are describing the agreement in a certain way for their domestic audience".

Zero outrage.  No disappointment.  In other words, the Iranians are being cut slack for simply posturing while the White House and State Department rip the Israeli Defense Minister's comments without even fully knowing whether they were reported accurately or not.   Can anything be taken from this? 

Well, it actually dovetails nicely with the increasing numbers of Democrats outwardly threatening to join a Senate bill forcing more sanctions on Iran despite pleas from the administration to give peace a chance (along with the president's staunch threat to veto it).  Are they just posturing, too?  Is the president just posturing by threatening to veto the bill?  Why can't Israel posture, too?

Or do these Democrats actually have more in common with the Israeli Defense Minister, ie, a real concern for their people and their security when staring at what looks to be an elaborate political flim-flam probably designed to get Obama off the looming Red Line hook in Iran just as the flim-flam in Syria got him off the WMD Red Line hook there. 

But onward we plod into the unknown, giving peace a chance.  In light of that it might be nice to call up some oldies but goodies as to who exactly we are on the verge of making a deal with right now.  Don't forget, there are two Americans still held hostage in Iran and they are presumably still allowing AQ terrorists to operate there as they have since 9/11 (and possibly before).  Indeed, the sanctions bill the administration is so vehemently posturing against only states the obvious:

One of the requirements of a new bipartisan Iran sanctions bill in the Senate is that President Barack Obama certify “Iran has not directly, or through a proxy, supported, financed, planned, or otherwise carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or United States persons or property anywhere in the world” during nuclear negotiations with the West.

If Iran—one of the top global sponsors of terrorism—is caught committing an extremist act, the bill would require new sanctions to immediately take effect.

Terror against the US?  Do tell!   Of course the Kerry people scoff at such an outrageous precondition as a deal-buster, claiming that a single itty-bitty terrorist attack could set back negotiations.  All of which sounds vaguely akin to surrendering to the terrorists, but in our present reality it's usually referred to as Smart Power.

Iraq and Syria

The 10 year anniversary of the attack of Iraq is upon us and the anti-Bush stories are flowing.   The more powerful come from ex-soldiers who feel Bush lied.  Most of the mainstream articles just insinuate Bush lied, mainly about the stockpiles of WMDs.  

Obama has never said Bush lied, only that he was dumb.  The president ended the war in Iraq, despite the war continuing on without us.   A war is going on in Syria as well, completely apart from Bush's evil handiwork, and lo and behold WMDs are a part of that war, too.

Today Obama reiterated his 'red line' on those WMDs in front of the Israeli people: if Assad uses them, he should expect consequences.  While Iraq war anniversary stories lament the estimated 100,000 people who died in Iraq--blamed on the presence of US troops--70,000 are now estimated dead in Syria without a trace of the United States. Both wars were/are presumably for the purposes of regime change and a chance at self-governance.

Meanwhile Saddam had already used WMDs and had a ten year history of fleecing international bodies and working with America-hating terrorists while attacking his neighbors.   Wait though, Assad's father also used WMDs, back in the early 80s with perhaps 30,000 being killed.  Son now works with Iran, another sponsor of terror.  If Bashar uses chemicals (these didn't come from Rummy) as Saddam did; and Obama steps in with our military to stop it, how is that much different than our meddling in Iraq?

Any US involvement would be complicated by their relationship with Iran and Hizballah, which could produce a regional conflagration.  Additionally, if Assad were to use his stuff it would suggest rank desperation, meaning any American troops inserted would be in jeopardy of future WMD attacks.

But the line is drawn--we're committed.   America cannot go back on the line.  Doing so would greatly weaken us on the world stage and embolden the tinpots.  So if an attack is confirmed something has to happen. Chances are it might be dumb as compared to Iraq.   But if small chemical attacks happen, as presumed the other day, and the politicos manage to keep them under the rug--and we don't do anything--the death toll will continue to rise while the axis between Syria, Iran and Russia will strengthen over time.   That could also be considered dumb.

Of course, the least dumbest route might be for Obama to completely hide our clandestine role in arming the Syrian rebels, with help of the incorrigible media, until right before Assad is pulled out in the street and beaten to death, whence he could jump in and take credit.  We'll see. 

Fit to Print

Now that the election is safely over the New York Times has been doing some excellent work reporting world events.  Recently they featured a leak story about weapons funneling into Libya from the UAE and Qatar; a few days ago they crystallized the administration's flip-flopiness on drawing red lines about Syrian WMDs; and today they're running an expose on the AQ-backed groups operating in Syria to rid Bashar Assad:

The group is a direct offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Iraqi officials and former Iraqi insurgents say, which has contributed veteran fighters and weapons. “This is just a simple way of returning the favor to our Syrian brothers that fought with us on the lands of Iraq,” said a veteran of Al Qaeda in Iraq, who said he helped lead the Nusra Front’s efforts in Syria. The United States, sensing that time may be running out for Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, hopes to isolate the group to prevent it from inheriting Syria or fighting on after Mr. Assad’s fall to pursue its goal of an Islamic state.

It doesn't take a Henry Kissinger to figure out a likely strategy--allow the AQ jihadist groups (the best fighters) to topple the regimes then swoop in and isolate them after the battle is over.  That seems precisely what our plan was in Libya--did it take the lives of the four in Benghazi?  Sometimes useful idiots resent being played for useful idiots.

It's interesting that AQ in Iraq fighters were reportedly involved in Benghazi and now the Times is saying they are all over Syria as well.  Any reader of this blog from the past might wonder about our old friend Izzat al-Duri, once in charge of Saddam's Revolutionary Command Council and after the war a wanted fugitive who has died several times while popping up every now and again in phantom sitings and belligerent recordings.  Since he was once reported to be hiding in Damascus one might wonder where he fits in with this recent Syrian thing--here's one opinion from the region: 

As Reidar Visser notes, Douri's political outlook on the wider region reflects an alignment with the Sunni Arab states against the regime of Bashar al-Asad, together with an opposition to any perceived Israeli, American, and Iranian interference in regional affairs.[43] Thus, he is critical of the intervention against the Qaddafi regime, which entailed NATO airstrikes against loyalist forces, but at the same time he praises the Saudi king for trying to resolve the political crisis in Yemen.[44] His criticism of the Syrian government means that it is unlikely that he is in Syria. Instead, a location in the Gulf area or the southern Arabian Peninsula seems to be most plausible, with Saudi Arabia or Yemen as possible hiding places.[45]

The Allawite Syrian Ba'athists were not exactly buddy-buddy with the more-or-less-Sunni Iraqi Ba'athists.  Not only that, but Assad's relationship with Tehran would make him a natural enemy of al-Duri.  At the same time it's likely Izzat was himself treating the jihadists as useful enemies while in Iraq and probably doesn't want to see a Salafist takeover of the greater Middle East, so it's tempting to think the CIA might try to work with him. 

In other words, the whole thing is as messy as ever.  While it's tempting to continue hoisting the One on his own petard for condemning the Bush administration's efforts in the region as he deals with AQ blowback and WMDs the bottom line is a western victory (of sorts) in the aftermath of this Arab Spring.  No doubt the AQ-backed rebels fighting in Syria are aware of their useful idiot status and plan to re-do the Iraqi insurgency in all the Arab Spring countries they are helping liberate if indeed we turn on them, which we will, so let's hope the reset administration has a double-secret plan to stop such a thing. 

Meanwhile, in Syria

Hell didn't just break loose, it's been on the loose for some time. As the US media focuses on NFL suicides and fiscal cliffs the Assad regime is reportedly mixing chemicals in preparation for a sarin attack on its own population. And unlike the recent statehood vote for Palestinia, this WMD threat has drawn a US response:

“I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command: The world is watching,” the president said in a speech at the National Defense University, in Washington. “The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."

Obama has been quoted as saying he doesn't bluff. Are we to assume that means another war will be automatic if the crazy-necked dictator sprays chemicals on his population? Obama is already on record as bragging about ending the war in Iraq and responsibly winding another down in Afghanistan; can he afford to start one in Syria?

Or does it matter? He knows that no matter what he does the media will be there to either 1) not report it, or 2) glorify it, while blaming Bush for anything that goes wrong.

While I'm no expert by any stretch it seems the WMD red line rhetoric is a box-in. If Assad calls the apparent bluff and uses WMD and we don't respond Obama will de-legitimize both himself and the United States position.  If we do engage it figures to be extremely messy considering both Russia and China--and of course Israel and the surrounding Arab countries--are greatly interested in the outcome and likely involved behind the scenes, with the same outcome not preferred by all players.   Meanwhile Iran's centrifuges spin.

And how about this wild and crazy wildcard scenario--what if some of the chem-weapons Assad is playing with originated in Iraq and Assad makes it known to the US that if we engage he will spill the beans, threatening Obama's dumb war position?   Would Obama call that bluff now that he's gained a second term? It would certainly help Hillary's status.  One might think it would also help Bush's legacy, that is if the white house press didn't manage to convince everyone the WMDs that weren't in Iraq are in Syria because Bush invaded Iraq to get rid of the WMDs, which was dumb.   Don't discount such things.    

Whatever the case it's a good thing Christmas is coming.  When is Charlie Brown on? 

Where is the Ambassador?

So, the administration sent their UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, on five network Sunday shows after the 9/11 Benghazi attacks to explain a terrorist attack but they don't send her out similarly today to explain why the Palestinians told us to screw off regarding pleas not to pursue the recent statehood vote?  In the UN?  Her bailiwick?  

It would be nice if someone, anyone, in the mainstream media could pivot off the former and onto the latter.  Maybe that someone anyone could explain why the administration or at least the UN Ambassador should not receive any blowback over what seems like a failure.  What does it mean when the United States, Canada and the Czech Republic are the only major nations to vote with Israel against Palestinian statehood?  Anyone?

The Long Arm of Iran

The title of this post comes directly from a description used by Benjamin Netanyahu to characterize a suspected Iranian influence in the Bulgarian terrorist attack.  Part of a worldwide pattern, he claims.  The New York Times seems to confirm:

A senior American official confirmed Israel’s assertions on Thursday that the suicide bomber who killed five Israelis in an attack here on Wednesday was a member of a Hezbollah cell operating in Bulgaria. The official said the current American intelligence assessment is that the bomber was “acting under broad guidance” to hit Israeli targets when the opportunity presented itself. That guidance was given to Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group, by its primary sponsor, Iran, he said.

The video/picture of the purported idiot (they claim he might have been an unwitting suicider) makes him look apropos for California or other American cities.  He's being described as Caucasian.  Bottom line, he doesn't look like an Arab or south Asian. Was that intentional?

The "fake" Michigan ID is also intriguing. The Times' source downplays it--for obvious reasons--but the question must be asked as to whether it was a calling card.  Such a thing has been done before.  If indeed the bomber was hapless and made a mistake then it would be reasonable to assume the ID had no deeper meaning.  But if it was meant to be found there are plenty of messages it could be sending.

Michigan has a high population of Muslim immigrants.  The underwear bomber was heading for Detroit.   What about Louisiana? Why would someone go to the trouble of creating a fake Michigan ID and put a Louisiana address on it?  Michigan would never allow such a document.  So what's the message? 

The address is clear on this site: 103 France St. Baton Rogue, LA.  That's a Casino.  Think sin. Din of iniquity.  And France.  The address, coupled with the name of the driver--"Jacque Felipe Martin"--suggests even more of a connection to France.  Yeah, possibly a tie to Cajun country; local authorities there are investigating, but the name sounds made up. 

The driver's date of birth, 5/12/87, does not appear to correlate with any significant events in history but the attack itself occurred on July 18, which was the anniversary of an attack on a Jewish Center in Buenos-Aires in 1994 generally blamed on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard via Shia-Hizballah terror chieftain Imad Mughniyah.  As to the driver's picture, it appears to be a character off "That 70s Show", ie, perhaps the way some still see American youth.

Making a lot of assumptions of course (this is a blog) but if it was a message then it was likely intended to speak to France (who is currently highly involved in the UNIFIL force in South Lebanon) and the United States (ie, Hizballah has operatives in America who look American) as to the "long arm" of our Persian foes in Tehran.  The State Department already has international travel warnings in effect.  With Syria crumbling and France and the United States pushing for sanctions what's a cornered animal to do?

Speaking of HVTs

This guy is prominently displayed on the Rewards for Justice list. There's even a special audio alert included with his profile.









Yet few here in America have ever heard of him:

Believed to be a master bomb maker and one-time leader of the "15 May" terrorist group, al-Umari also has been indicted by the Government of France for his role in the 1985 bombing of the Marks and Spencer Department store in Paris and the Leumi Bank.

Al-Umari may possess a passport from Lebanon, where his wife reportedly lives. He is the father of two sons and two daughters. He lived for several years in Iraq. While his current whereabouts are unknown, it is possible that he is residing in Lebanon or Iraq. He reportedly travels at all times with a firearm and should be considered armed and dangerous.

The 15 May Organization was formed in late 70s as a Palestinian offshoot of the PLFP. Abu Ibrahim was al-Umari's prime nom de guerre. He was an early inventor of the seat bomb used on airliners, which probably inspired later bombers such as Ramzi Yousef.

He was also behind a much bigger plot than Pan Am 830 as the NY Times described shortly after TWA 800 crashed:

The era of terrorist bomb attacks on airplanes is generally acknowledged to have begun on Aug. 11, 1982, when an explosion went off aboard a Pan Am jet en route to Honolulu from Tokyo. A 16-year-old Japanese boy was blown from his seat and bled to death before the pilots could land the Boeing 747.

Two weeks later, a bomb was discovered inside a small vinyl bag aboard another Pan Am jet. It did not explode and was found after the plane landed in Rio de Janeiro on a flight from Miami.

Comparing the devices, the F.B.I. found that the same plastic explosive, containing PETN -- the same substance found on wreckage from Flight 800 -- was used in both bombs. Federal officers also found that wiring from the unexploded bomb matched a hair-thin sliver retrieved from the body of the young victim, Toru Ozawa. In the following weeks, an informer helped the F.B.I. track down 12 more unexploded bombs aimed at Western interests. Similarities between the explosives and timers led authorities to conclude that the bombs were made by the same person or organization.

Emphasis to point out a similarity to the infamous Operation Bojinka that came later in the mid 90s, which KSM played a major planning role. But al-Umari hasn't been linked to any terrorist acts since the 80s, so why is the RFJ elevating this 70+ year old so prominently? After all, his history sounds a bit inconvenient:

Location/Area of Operation: Baghdad until 1984. Before disbanding, operated in Middle East, Europe, and East Asia, Abu Ibrahim is reportedly in Iraq.

Today is the anniversary of the first attack against the new Israel, which declared independence on May 14, 1948--the reason his murderous organization is called 15 May. Bin Laden issued a tape last year mentioning Israel and threatening us if we executed KSM, and reportedly his next to last tape also mentioned Israel. Ibrahim is from the territories; he worked under the blessing of Saddam probably from Baghdad, and Saddam had a long history working with the PLO (as did Gaddafi). Might perhaps one of the newly acquired thumb drives found in bin Laden's hideout contain anything about al-Umari? And if so, exactly what kind of dot-connection would that represent?

To a Boil

We've had a day of rage in Egypt so today must have been a day of rumor:

Another phone call from Obama to Abdullah on Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011 (today) was described as the most acerbic the US president has ever had with an Arab ruler and brought their relations into deep crisis and placed in jeopardy the entire edifice of US Iran and Middle East policies, causing the king to fear that in the event of a situation developing in Saudi Arabia like the uprising in Egypt, Washington would dump him just like Mubarak.

Wonder which side is leaking these private Obama-Abdullah conversations? Added to the rumor mill is one that says Abdullah has died (DEBKA, for what it's worth), of course the thought of Saudi collapsing might do it, especially considering the likely heirs and their methods.

One has to wonder how much any of that has to do with the Wiki Leak about SA's oil reserves being overblown by about half, which is drawing only timid press here. Perhaps the cable was passing along a rumor but certainly if factual it might shine some extra light on our presence in Iraq.

Right Truth also points out that 2 supertankers have now been captured by the Somali Popeyes while Mubarak seems to be re-thinking his exile. Sounds like some upcoming fun in the oil futures market. It might be interesting to know what position George Soros has taken.

Well, surely the smart power set is in the Situation Room figuring all of this out right now. Or not. Where is Hillary anyway? Meanwhile the threat of terrorism is as high now as 9/11 but it's mainly domestic. Gee, weren't the 9/11 hijackers operating in America?

Awesome Indeed

There is utter chaos on the streets in Egypt. Here in America everyone including the president is trying to figure out what's going on and what it means and who's to blame. This picture probably won't help matters..


It purports to be Coptic Christians forming a ring around some protesting Muslims as they pause for daily prayer. Copts were recently attacked by a self-described branch of AQ and in response some Muslims Imams called for unity. Let's hope this is true. And let's hope Ayman Zawahiri sees this picture and it causes him to have a stroke. OK, it's not Christian-like to wish bad health on enemies, so perhaps it will cause him to run outside his hut screaming and get killed by a drone.

Most agree the region has reached a decision point. The future seems to lie with either democratic states or thugocracies (that we are forced to pay off to keep the peace) or theocracies like Iran. The thugocracies are a dying breed in a world of Twitter and Facebook--Bush was trying to foster a regional movement by remaking Iraq because he knew the only hope of stopping organized and state-sponsored terrorism was to reform the states.

So yes, the protesters here are quite awesome, and quite inevitable.

Mohamed to the Rescue

The world has been hearing a lot about Mohamed ELBaradei since the Egyptian unrest, but will the world hear about his affiliation with International Crisis Group?

This who's who of left-leaning luminaries' other noted board members include Kofi Annan, Jan Egeland, and Mark Mallock-Brown from UN fame, and notables Wesley Clark and Sandy Berger (socks) from the US.

And George Soros.

They also count Prince Turki al-Faisal from Saudi Arabia and former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo (now head of the Yale University School of the Study of Globalization) as special consultants. Here's a humorous quote from the blog source of this gem, from poster 'Narciso':

It's like Dr. Evil's conference table, maybe El Baradei can be Will Farrell's beturbaned fellow.

LOL. Beck will probably be all over this on Monday if he hasn't already covered it.

But is it really sinister? The group also includes former Bush guy Kenneth Adelman and long time diplomat Thomas Pickering, the latter who was deputy undersecretary of state in 1998 when Clinton bombed al-Shifa in Khartoum and felt there was indeed a Sudan-Iraq connection. Then again he also felt the Bush administration(s) both dropped the ball on Iraq, and as Obama (whom he voted for) was coming into power he vocally advocated for bi-lateral talks with Iran without pre-conditions. Surely these things have put him at odds with the Bush crowd in recent years.

As to Mr. Adelman, he has apparently had a falling out with his neocon past a few years ago.

Anyway, these international ties are certainly interesting considering how ELBaradei always appeared so patient with the Iranians on their nuke program and so impatient with George W. Bush when combined with the current rumblings. And of course a Soros connection is always interesting.

MORE 1/30/11

This is kind of a bunny trail but it ties in with Ambassador Pickering's adamant stand on the al-Shifa intelligence. Right after the completion of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Newsweek magazine's cover for their January 11, 1999 issue was titled "Saddam + Bin Laden? The subhead read "It would be a marriage made in hell. And America's two enemies are courting". Not really a man bites dog; there were several connections made by mainstream journalists and government officials at the time. But from the article, note this comment from "an Arab intelligence officer who knows Saddam personally":

Washington is somewhat skeptical, but this source says plans have already been put into action under three "false flags": one Palestinian, one Iranian and one "the al Qaeda apparatus," the loose collection of terrorists who receive bin Laden's patronage. "All these organizations have representatives in Baghdad," says the Arab intelligence officer.

Right there in black and white, the lefty leaning Newsweek saying AQ had an office in Baghdad, 2 1/2 years before 9/11. As to the unnamed intelligence officer, chances are he wasn't an Egyptian, maybe Yemeni, but Mubarak was one of the sources given by Tenet and others as to confirming Saddam's stash.

At any rate, Stephen Hayes pointed out later that one of the writers would be backtracking all over himself when it appeared likely Bush was actually going to do something about it in 2003. Were they just covering for Clinton all along?

Egypt Riots

Not sure there's a sure fire play for the US in this Egyptian mess but it can't be backing Mubarak. He's old and has not groomed a viable successor and he cannot control technology and social media forever without risking more violence--and those things bring news of a better world and allow the peeps to coordinate action. Besides, they love their toys and will only part with them from cold dead hands.

So, the US is left to back the protesters and hope the Muslim Brotherhood (with help from their extensive networks) don't worm their way in and take over (the reason Obama didn't reach out to protesters in Iran was because he knew they wouldn't win).

That seems to be the consensus on the left side of the aisle right now, a sort of Francis Fox Piven solution, which is odd considering that when Bush pushed democracy in the middle east many of the same folks poo-poo'd it as fantasy that would never work. Besides, Saddam was needed as a barrier to the Iranian madmen. Funny how Mubarak isn't needed as a buffer against other Arab countries attacking Israel. But times change, evidently.

MORE 1/29/11

So what's the Iranian connection in this? They seem pretty happy about things but then again, it might be a moment of opportunism and payback. Recall from history that Anwar Sadat was a vocal critic of the Khomeini movement, calling them loons and such:

Sadat had been feuding with the mullahs since he had negotiated peace with Israel at Camp David in 1978. At the time, Khomeini had called Sadat a traitor to the Palestinians and to Muslims everywhere, while Sadat, a Sunni Muslim, branded the Shia Khomeini "a lunatic madman ... who has turned Islam into a mockery."

Death did nothing to lessen the feud: When Pahlavi died of cancer in July 1980, Sadat granted him a state funeral and buried him at Al Rifai, in a room by the tombs of two former Egyptian kings. And, when a young Egyptian soldier named Khalid Islambouli emptied his machine gun into Sadat a year later, Tehran promptly issued a postage stamp in Islambouli's honor, named a street in Tehran after him, and painted a nearby building with a four-story mural of the glorious martyr (he was captured and executed).

So there's a history there. Whether it's coming into play in the events of today in more than just a 'neener-neener' fashion is the question. We know the Iranians have made some peaceful overtures in the last decade, but then again..

Perhaps sensing that Egypt's enmity is an obstacle to its ambitions, Iran has made some efforts to woo Egypt into its sphere of influence. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he wants to open an Iranian embassy in Cairo, and, a few years ago, the Tehran city council changed the name of Islambouli street. But a sign bearing the shooter's name still stands at an entrance to the street, and the giant mural still towers overhead. And, last summer, Cairo was whipped into a new frenzy when Iranian television broadcast Assassination of a Pharaoh, a documentary that celebrates Sadat's murder, featuring, among other things, a slow-motion count of the bullets that Islambouli fired into the doomed president's body. In response, Egyptian police raided an Iranian TV station in Cairo, and Egypt cancelled a soccer match between the countries. It doesn't seem like Obama needs to worry that his crucial Arab ally is about to align with Tehran. The Shah certainly isn't going anywhere soon.

Incidentally, the above comments are from the New Republic's senior editor Michael Crowley, who goes on to tout Obama's cunning play to eradicate the Iranian dictators by leveraging them with the Egyptian dictator:

And it appears that official Obama administration policy will be to exploit that tension to the fullest. That explains why the president is cozying up to Egypt's authoritarian dictator, Hosni Mubarak--saying nothing at Cairo University about Mubarak's penchant for political repression and torture. Obama clearly appreciates that this Egyptian-Iranian blood feud well serves his struggle to reach peace in the Middle East and stop Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed regional superpower. Democracy and human rights can wait.

Hmmm. Wouldn't that make recent events an epic fail for Obama's middle eastern policy, along with a surviving Iranian nuke program, Hizballah-controlled Lebanon and the ongoing chaos in Afghanistan? Axelod is trying to say that Obama was all over Mubarak about this potential over the past few years. Wonder how the NR will cover it now.

MORE 1/29/11

Politico's Josh Gerstein calls Axelrod out on his prevarication. History is indeed being spun left and right on this, but it's important to remember who was front and center on the freedom bandwagon before it was cool. Rice's speech--in Cairo--was much more provocative than Obama's and left no doubt about where reforms were needed. The Bushies later backed down after freedom began to fail in various locations, taking the more pragmatic view, but if TNR version is correct it suggests Obama was winking at Hosni all along. Until now of course.

Will the Real Rauf Please Stand Up

In an earlier post I took the leap of saying that Imam Rauf, by saying America was partly to blame for 9/11 and helped to create bin Laden, was by extension blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11.

This is a leap most liberals would not make, preferring instead to see those words as Obama did in Cairo, ie, acknowledging the CIA's involvement in various places or somehow blaming Bush for our tattered Arab street cred after the fact.

But today Sweetness and Light uncovers a fascinating transcript from a talk Rauf gave in Australia in 2005 that shines some actual light on what he actually sees as a Clinton's failure:

The complexity arises, sir, from the fact that - from political problems and the history of the politics between the West and the Muslim world. We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US lead sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.

Well, this is not much different than what bin Laden said in 1998 when he called for the murder of Americans wherever found around the globe:

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

Or... from Saddam Hussein in one of his 'open letters' to America after 9/11:

In addition, we say to the American peoples, what happened on September 11, 2001 should be compared to what their government and their armies are doing in the world, for example, the international agencies have stated that more than one million and a half Iraqis have died because of the blockade imposed by America and some Western countries, in addition to the tens of thousands who died or are injured in the military action perpetrated by America along with those who allied with it against Iraq. Hundreds of bridges, churches, mosques, colleges, schools, factories, palaces, hotels, and thousands of private houses were destroyed or damaged by the American and Western bombardment, which is ongoing even today against Iraq. If you replay the images of the footage taken by the western media itself of this destruction, you will see that they are not different from the images of the two buildings hit by the Boing airplanes, if not more atrocious, especially when they are mixed with the remains of men, women, and children. There is, however, one difference, namely that those who direct their missiles and bombs to the targets, whether Americans or from another Western country, are mostly targeting by remote controls, that is why they do so as if they were playing an amusing game. As for those who acted on September 11, 2001, they did it from a close range, and with, I imagine, giving their lives willingly, with an irrevocable determination.

For this reason also, the Americans, and the world with them, should understand the argument that made those people give their lives in sacrifi, and what they sacrificed themselves for, in that way.

When one million and a half Iraqi human beings die, according to Western documents, from a population of twenty five million, because of the American blockade and aggression, it means that Iraq has lost about one of twenty five of its population. And just as your beautiful skyscrapers were destroyed and caused your grief, beautiful buildings and precious homes crumbled over their owners in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq by American weapons used by the Zionists. In only one place, which was a civilian shelter, which is the Ameriyah Shelter, more than four hundred human beings, children, young and old men and women, died in Iraq by American bombs.

Absurd, of course. Saddam gamed the sanctions and profited off Oil for Food and if anyone starved it was the Shiites--due to him. Bin Laden came along later and blamed America for Saddam's doings, which required our presence in Saudi to stop Saddam, giving him justification for 9/11. Now Rauf is saying they were both kinda right.

Most Americans will not take kindly to being blamed in part for 9/11 based on our 'meddling' around the world. Despite some flaws that meddling is largely for the good, such as securing commerce, resources, and democracy. All countries meddle, including the Soviets, who meddled their way into Afghanistan and killed untold thousands, which gave rise to our 'creation' of bin Laden and others to help stop it. Clinton also meddled in Bosnia/Kosovo, which saved Muslim lives, then bin Laden repaid us with 9/11.

As if that's not enough, later in the transcript he invokes Fahrenheit 9/11; blames Bush for not directly addressing the Iraqi people during his surprise appearances in Baghdad (failing to consider that might have seemed rather authoritarian, as if Bush considered himself an emperor); and denies that Islam needs any kind of reformation like Christianity.

He also says women were treated well and given many rights by Mohammad and they need to return to those salad days (presumably condemning the House of Saud) and he favors a one-state solution in Israel. Everyone knows one state leaves an Arab state--with nukes.

And now this same moderate imam wants a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero. His most erstwhile domestic supporters are likely onboard because they both see the real worldwide enemy as the rest of America. Or perhaps more specifically--white folks' greed running a world of need.

Don't misunderstand--reconciliation is good and necessary but we must both come to the table with honesty. Preconditions to building this bridge cannot include our admitting partial blame for 9/11, after all, we'd never admit as much for Pearl Harbor. Besides, we're being told over and over that the enemy is not really Islam, just a distorted version thereof. If that's really the case why would it make sense to ever assign us blame based on what some crazy people who don't represent their religion or peoples have done?

Figuring Iran

Mahmood Ahmaakbarjad unveiled the latest in peaceful Muslim technology from the Islamic Republic of Iran today..


Does he think he's Goldfinger?

Seriously, aside from the toyish look to this new weapon, Iran seems to be doing OK of late. Just some of the events not to make many front page headlines:

They captured Jund'Allah leader Rigi then executed him in one of their cities in Balochistan as an example. Rigi was working for the west, being leveraged against both Iran and Pakistan; some reports even said Pakistan fingered him to the Iranians. A rather large embarrassment, it would seem.

Hamid Karzai attended a summit in Tehran, a story virtually blacked out in major western media outlets. Now Karzai is saying he's working on a peace treaty with the Taliban.

For over two years now Iran has been operating a twice-a-month scheduled Iran Air flight between Tehran, Damascus and Caracas, Venezuela. There's no real reason for this other than provocation.

And now this--after Obama trumpets the toughest sanctions ever the Iranians reply by shooting missiles, starting the reactor at Bushehr using some fuel they've been processing themselves (with Putin in charge of monitoring), and this drone thing.

If one adds the fact they got away scot-free with a phony-baloney election and accompanying massacre, our awesome new world influence doesn't seem to be affecting them yet.

Still, Obama deserves at least some credit for trying to game them. He knew they would never accept his overtures to meet and therefore figured it would give the United States more leverage to form a coalition, and perhaps even the cover to take out their program, at some point. The likes of Sean Hannity can't appreciate such things but in hindsight it appears to be a fairly smart move on our part should we ever need to bomb bomb bomb Iran.

But that of course depends on what happens next. Is it any coincidence that after a public embarrassment in Washington, then Jerusalem, that Israel's Netanyahu has been very quiet of late?

After all, after the dust-up Obama did come out in tacit support of Jerusalem in the flotilla thing, which had to anger some on the professional left and their Friends of Palestine friends. Some may even see the naming of one of the next flotilla ships as the "Audacity of Hope" to be a provocation directed at Obama for not remaining true to his former liberal orthodoxy on the subject, especially with former Hyde Park friend Rashid Khalidi involved in that project.

The bottom line is whether we're seeing the execution of a game plan, which would explain the relative silence out of Israel after all this Iranian bluster, or whether the west in general is just at a loss for words. Or maybe everyone is on vacation. They seem to be popular of late.

Hope Floats

Seriously, some days it just must suck to be the president..

Rashid Khalidi, a friend of President Obama's active in Palestinian causes, has signed an appeal for funds to send to Gaza an aid ship that would be named after the president's best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope."

Ouch. Yes, the same Rashid who was the subject of that videotaped going away party that Obama attended along with Ayers and Dohrn that the LA Times refused to release before the election (has anyone checked the J-list archives on that one)? Conventional wisdom said that Khalidi or others might have taken some jabs at Israel, which would have been inconvenient for publication a few weeks before the election. Sort of like a mystery DUI. Indeed..

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment. In response to an e-mail asking whether the appeal is embarrassing to the president, Khalidi said that he was not aware the boat would be named after Obama's book when he agreed to add his name to the list of sponsors.

"But if the name is a problem for the administration, it can simply insist publicly that Israel lift the siege: end of problem, end of embarrassment," he wrote, "That of course would require it to respond to the systematic mendacity of those in Congress and elsewhere who support the siege, and indeed whatever else the Israeli government does."

Khalidi added: "I signed because the siege/blockade of Gaza, which is effectively supported by the United States, is a disgrace. I support the idea because it may cause the media to pay attention to the effective imprisonment and collective punishment of 1.5 million people who by the admission of Israeli officials, are being subjected to this ordeal in order to bring down their government. As the Goldstone Report suggested, this may rise to the level of a war crime, in which our country is complicit. That is truly embarrassing."

It will be interesting if they now send him under the bus, assuming this gets much more press. But it's guaranteed to if they get the funding, isn't it? The name ensures it, so long as it remains.

Osama Now in Sabzevar

The Debkafiles are about as reliable as a supermarket tabloid so there's really no reason to believe this..but here it is:

debkafile's intelligence sources disclosed Monday night that Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan and his intelligence chiefs are well aware that Bin Laden and Zawahiri are hiding in Iran. The leak to the Kuwait paper was intended to show the Obama administration that the Turkish leader's ties with Iran had grown intense enough for him to be fully in the picture of Iran's secret sanctuary for the authors of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Here's an overhead view of the beautiful Sabvezar, including a blow-up of their amusement park..


How about a MEMRI version:

The Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa reported on June 7, 2010, that Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and five other high-ranking Al-Qaeda figures have been hiding for five years in the mountains of Sabzevar, a city in Khorasan province in northeastern Iran (220 km west of Mashhad).

According to Al-Siyassa, the information, which came from a source linked directly to Iranian security apparatuses, was that bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri had entered Sabzevar at the invitation of Iran and through the mediation of Lebanese Hizbullah.

Stories are saying they allowed the release of some of the terrorists through Syria, although Iran shares no border with Syria. So there's that. I've always been intrigued by this Porter Goss interview in 2005 where he was asked about bin Laden and responded:

"That is a question that goes far deeper than you know," he said. "In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror, we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice.

"We are making very good progress on it. But when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play.

Most figured he meant Pakistan, and he probably did, but the same could apply to Iran. Here's a previous 'bin Laden in Iran' story, including the mention of Falconry.

On some levels it might make sense for them to sanctuary there--after all, much of his family ended up there after Tora Bora, including his "late" son Saad, and there's no way we can put boots on the ground in Iran. But Tehran would be playing with serious fire by harboring the big boys. The Mullahs are nuts, but are they that nuts? Would this signal they are ready to rumble? Or is it just another bluff--Hillary said to expect a stunt in the next few days due to the prospect of more sanctions. She's right, every time they get sanctioned something seems to happen. So maybe somebody is trying to kneecap their stunt with this story.

As to the Kuwaiti paper, it's in Arabic. But we don't need it, we've got this entry in Wikipedia..




















Case closed..

Oversimplifying the World

Lots of talk about what Obama really meant by his "like it or not" statement on America's super power status at the loose nuke summit--I think he's embarrassed to consider himself the leader of such a huge power in light of all the apologizing he's done over the past year.

But it's dog bites man--the same kind of sentiment can be easily found in the writings of the former ideological friends he threw under the bus during the campaign and most probably even within his own writings should they ever come out. The bigger question is whether the summit logo was actually a sneaky Islamic crescent!

Anyway, this New York Times article on the matter contains two paragraphs quoting former Congressman Robert Wexler (now part of a Mid-East think tank) that are most bizarre:

“The president is re-evaluating the tactics his administration is employing toward Israel and the entire Middle East,” said Robert Wexler, a former Democratic congressman who resigned in January to lead the Center for Middle East Peace, a Washington-based nonprofit institution that is working for a peace agreement.

“I don’t think that anybody believes American lives are endangered or materially affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” said Mr. Wexler, who has close ties to administration officials. “That’s an oversimplification. However, you’d have to have blinders on not to recognize that there are issues in one arena that affect other arenas.”

Anybody? I think almost everybody believes American lives could be endangered by the conflict, since almost every terrorist over the last 30 years has evoked Israel in some way, shape or form. Even long dead writers of the Bible saw the danger there. So Wexler is either off his gord or just illustrating the stock world-socialist view of how to solve the crisis--less Israel. In the latter case we might ask, just how close are his ties to the administration?

Well, I continue to wonder if Obama is just pulling a grand subterfuge on the dimwits of the world or whether he really believes the stuff coming outa his own mouth. I continue to wonder which might be worse, and have found no solution as yet.

Meanwhile the Times continues to live up to their low expectations. In their mention of the letter sent to the administration about Israel by most in Congress they pulled a classic 'oversimplification' of their own:

On Tuesday, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, publicized letters to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, signed by 76 senators and 333 House members, that implored the administration to defuse tensions.

Ben Smith at Politico described the letter as a 'rebuke'. It was clearly meant to show support for Israel after Clinton and Obama publicly chastised them, not just to "diffuse tensions" in the region. By mischaracterizing the letter we might ask--just how close are the Times' ties to this administration?

Dubai Explained, More or Less

The Daily Mail tells the tale:

The 18-strong team had lain in wait for Al-Mabhouh – who was travelling under the fake name of Mahmoud Abdul Ra’ouf Mohammed – before tracking him down to Dubai’s Al Bustan Rotana hotel near the airport. He had arrived on Emirates flight EK912 from Damascus and had used a fake passport.

The story goes on to explain how they got the security chain attached from the outside (a slender woman) and their jury-rigged, James Bond-ish electric chair bed that didn't work (unless they used it to interrogate him). What it does not explain is why Mabhouh was in Dubai in the first place, traveling under a phony passport. But it does say this:

We believe the papers he was carrying were copied.

Which must have more than a few people squirming in Gaza and perhaps Tehran and other points unknown. It will be interesting to see if the region reacts like it did to the Syrian nuke facility raid or as if a legitimate act of aggression.