Update Update

Just wondering about some forgotten stories...

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's up with Jade Helm?

A lot of grinning, giggling and eye rolling in press rooms of late at the mention of upcoming military training exercise "Jade Helm 15".   Both Fox and CNN asked Sec Def Ash Carter about in his official Pentagon briefing yesterday, and others have brought it up in White House briefings.  The answer from Carter yesterday was so politically correct it was almost unintelligible.  Josh Earnest has been less charitable, evoking snickers, unmasking the press once again.  

This seems to be the trigger to the craziness....

As pointed out, the "hostile" and "permissive" areas tie directly to red and blue state maps of a political variety.  Was that intentional?  This map was developed by someone in the military, maybe at the Pentagon, and was subsequently leaked by someone in the military.  That alone says something about what some members of the services think about this exercise.

The main question is whether this map was an inside joke by some liberal in the DoD, a clueless coincidence, or a map of future takeover zones as the Alex Jones backyard bunker truther movement would have everyone believe.  Who created the map?  Was it ordered from above by civilians in the administration? 

When quizzed the military says it's just another training exercise using urban areas to simulate possible battlefield situations 'overseas'.  That's no doubt true--but one could also ask why such a massive scale and where are they preparing to fight?  Are they expecting a Biblical Middle East conflagration if the Iran nuke deal falls through and Israel launches a unilateral raid?   The paranoid nutcakes are not asking that question and the snickering media aren't either, but perhaps someone should ask the Obama folks after all the snickering dies down. 

After all, we were told the dumb Bush wars has been ended responsibly and AQ is apparently still on the run.  And the Iran nuke deal is not going to fall through and smash Obama's legacy--the proof of this is in the way the administration (and their media lap dogs) have ignored the war between Iran's proxy in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, along with the Iranians capturing a US-protected commercial vessel and holding it for ransom.  Heard much about those stories over and above Brady and Baltimore?     


So yeah, this Jade Helm thing is a little weird.  It's not a take-over of Texas, there won't be any FEMA trains sending Tea Partiers to martial law internment camps.   Life will go on.  But if this is just a trolling operation by the Obama administration, it needs to come out.  And if it's in prep for something big, that might be newsworthy, too.  Obviously somebody leaked the map/plans for a reason.

28 pages? How about the UBL docs.. or the Iraq docs

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. 

Losing Yemen

Still some confusion over how the Obama administration pulled out of our embassy in Yemen a few days ago.  There was initial reporting by Fox and others that authorities at the airport in Sana'a requested our embassy Marines hand over their personal weapons to the terrorists before boarding aircraft out of the country (embassy vehicles were seized upon departure).

Obviously the symbolism of this did not sit well in all quarters. Everything we do on the world stage sends a message, so what message does it send to have a terror group disarming our Marines?

But the early accounts have been challenged.  State spokesgal Jen Psaki tried to beat back the flames today, reading the Marine Corps' explanation, calling the earlier reporting 'false', which promoted this exchange with reporters (for some reason C-SPAN would not allow embedding).

Notice at the end of the clip she was asked who was in authority at the airport and she passed the question without taking a breath.  That matters to this story.    

AP's Matt Lee wasn't satisfied with Psaki's initial answer and tried again.   Obviously she wasn't going to give away precise details on how we extricate personnel from embassies in hostile territory, but she opened the door by saying it "didn't go according to plan".

So, the Marines say the 'advanced plan' was to go to the airport and destroy the personal weapons, presumably as a condition of flying out.  Psaki wouldn't elaborate but she admitted the operation didn't come off as planned.  Why not?  She wouldn't say.   National security and such.

Nobody bothered to ask whether the plan might have been to have air assets come in and remove the embassy personnel and equipment and fly everything to the waiting ships offshore.  Admiral Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, could have perhaps shed some light on this but alas, there has been no Pentagon briefing the past two days.

So questions remain.  Does this set precedent?  Do we always make these kinds of deals abandoning our facilities?  Who made the actual call to disarm at the airport and why?  Or was it ad-hoc?  Why did the Army and CNN make it sound like our departure was ignominious if it wasn't?  Was any of the planning, either ahead of time or perhaps at the airport, done through negotiations with the Houthis that CNN reported yesterday control the airport and obviously control the capital?  Would this amount to negotiating with terrorists?  Does leaving our guns scattered on the tarmac amount to giving them concessions, which the administration claims we never do?  

Or are the Houthis not actually terrorists, but like the Taliban better classified as "armed insurgents" despite their marching through the streets echoing the Tehran chant? 


All of these questions need to be answered to determine the truth, but the symbolism will be clear to the street--our Marines were forced out of town and made to give up their weapons in the process, yet another sign of weakness on the international stage.  Bin Laden once called America a "paper tiger", which eventually culminated in 9/11.  Then Bush came in and said "bring it on".  Obama seems to be sending signals everywhere that he'll sue for peace at just about any cost.   After all, we did the Crusades. 

Still some mystery....

...in the raid to kill Usama bin Laden.   This was illustrated by an expansive NBC News story about Air Force Special Operations Weathermen:

“I guarantee you there were guys out there,” said one senior official, who requested anonymity because he isn’t authorized to discuss the bin Laden mission. Special Operations Command declined to comment directly, as did Sawtelle, the officer then in charge of the SOWTs at Hurlburt Field.

But the need for data was obvious. Pakistan’s ground weather stations are spotty and far-flung, producing forecasts too vague for military use. To compensate, at least one environmental observer was on the flight path into Pakistan, while a second dug into the mountains surrounding Abbottabad, providing environmental “overwatch” on the compound, according to military sources.

It’s unclear how they landed in those positions. SOWTs are trained to jump from tens of thousands of feet, glide through the night and hit an X anywhere on the map. But they’re equally adept at flying commercial with an Osprey backpack, North Face boots and a cover story.

Now, yes, that's interesting to say the least, assuming this story isn't complete horse manure.  If they were indeed in there then as the story indicates they were either dropped off by lead aircraft (never mentioned) or hiked into position after some kind of clandestine entry.  Assuming truth was it necessary to reveal the role of this unit to the public?  

Investigation Update

Breaking today--the Dept of Justice might charge General Betrayus with leaking classified info to his Lt. Colonel mistress.

Only fair, right?  Leaking is leaking.  Little guys like Jeffrey Sterling, who will stand trial soon, and John Kiriakou, who went to jail, were not immune. Matter of fact, General Petraeus was quoted as saying the following about Kiriakou:

General David Petraeus, CIA director, made a statement to CIA employees: "This case yielded the first IIPA successful prosecution in 27 years, and it marks an important victory for our Agency, for our Intelligence Community, and for our country. Oaths do matter, and there are indeed consequences for those who believe they are above the laws".

Ouch. So there's a little room for schadenfreude there. 

Then again former Clinton NSA Sandy Berger never served time for stealing and destroying documents from the National Archives that might have pertained to 9/11.  And speaking of generals, what about "Obama's favorite general" James "Hoss" Cartwright, who was told in 2013 he was a target in a probe investigating the Stuxnet leak to an Obama-friendly NY Times reporter back in 2012?   What's happening with his case?

We don't know.  We do know that Jill Abramson, the editor of that Obama-friendly newspaper was fired last year only months after calling the Obama administration the most secretive she had ever dealt with in the midst of discussing the record number of leak prosecutions.  

So it's hard to figure whether Holder will go out the door by taking Petraeus down.  It would be typical Obama, but he's a pretty astute politician, too.     

Khattala Rendition Complete

Abu Khattala's rendition back to America is now complete. Yes, he was rendered, although the press is timid about calling it such.  No, he was not 'extraordinarily' rendered as during the Bush 43 years, which made a lot of headlines, it was more similar to the renditions that occurred during the Clinton years.

Obama told everyone he would do this in 2009 so it's not any kind of 'gotcha', although Eric Holder did change the rules of how long a suspect could be held on a black site, such as a Navy ship for interrogation (presumably based on the Army Field Manual only) back in 2010. 

All of that aside it's good news they have this guy in custody.  He will be seeing a judge shortly.   Hopefully he gave up some goods while en-route back here such as the location of 'core' AQ operative and former GITMO prisoner bin Qumu so we can go after the network. They probably cross-checked his info with whatever Anas al-Liby told them during his rendition, although with only a few weeks of interrogation it's hard to believe they got very much.

The stand-out thing about this operation was bringing him back to Washington, DC on the USS New York:

The New York left the Mediterranean about a week ago and will eventually return to its home port near Jacksonville, Fla. It had been sent to the Mediterranean expressly to be part of the mission to capture Mr. Abu Khattala.

The ship typically carries four Osprey aircraft and two helicopters, one of which was used for the transfer on Saturday. Its bow was forged with steel from the World Trade Center towers.

As the WaPo alludes, it's unusual to bring a terrorism suspect directly into the Capitol so this was obviously a statement, along with using the New York.  The question is whether the statement was aimed more at our overseas terrorist enemies or the domestic enemies the administration has called terrorists. It really shouldn't be a toss up question.

Perfect Timing

It's not surprising that a wing nut such as myself would question the timing of anything the Decider Guy might do on terrorism.  But it is a little surprising that the State Dept press secretary was peppered with timing questions right off the bat in her briefing today, and not only by Fox.  One does have to wonder why it took so long seeing as how the indictment against Khattala was sealed almost a year ago amidst rumors he was very easy to find around the Benghazi cafe scene.  Surely it had nothing to do with Hillary's scheduled interview with Fox News tonight.

Aside from the political skepticism this is great.  If the picture released with today's stories was taken after the snatch he looks scared poopless, which is good based on the poop he sold the Times about it being our fault and such.  So it looks like one down about 23 to go.  Don't miss the fact that we're seeing yet another rendition by Obama with a terror suspect whisked away to an unknown location.  Where have we heard that complaint before?   But take heart ideologically consistent liberals, Holder is charging him with gun crimes, too.

Meanwhile you may be asking, what does the Benghazi attack have to do with Iraq?   The answer is maybe nothing, but nobody seems to be asking about this report from CNN issued shortly after the 9/11/12 attack:

U.S. intelligence believes that assailants connected to al Qaeda in Iraq were among the core group that attacked the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, a U.S. government official told CNN. That would represent the second al Qaeda affiliate associated with the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Previously, intelligence officials said there were signs of connections to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African wing of the terror group. The revelation that members of al Qaeda in Iraq are suspected of involvement in the Libya attack comes at a time when there is a growing number of fighters from that group also taking part in the Syrian civil war.

For those scoring at home, "al Qaeda in Iraq" is now called either ISIL or ISIS--the same thugs now beheading their way to Baghdad.  Maybe chairman Gowdy can unlock this mystery connection.  And maybe somebody, anybody, can explain why the president is heralding the resolve and determination of the United States in the pursuit and capture of a possible terrorist in Libya two weeks after releasing five known terrorists already in lock up while downplaying their threat?    

Wow, where did that come from?

Diane Sawyer actually looked pissed during her Hillary interview.  Maybe it was the way Hillary replied to the age question in another segment, but dang..


ABC US News | ABC Celebrity News

Or maybe this was an attempt at getting her out of the witness chair at Gowdy's Select Committee--after all, she couldn't do much worse.   This jaw dropping display of real journalism ironically came around the same time another veteran journalist, Andrea Mitchell, was shooting holes in State Department spokesgal Marie Harf's Bergdahl narrative as a mother would pick apart her child's lie. 

It's easy to say these events herald a new mainstream media, one finally ready to do their jobs.  But their history is known.  Something must be up.    

Empowering the Terrorists

Despite all the blather about the 21st century coming from the administration and their various cheerleaders nobody seems to have noticed that the Taliban has yet to emerge from the 7th century.  They remain a barbaric pack of fundamental nutcakes who really have no country.  They once acted as Usama bin Laden's personal protection army, which assisted him in pulling off 9/11, and are proud of it.

But we are told the Taliban is different than AQ.  They didn't actually attack us, we invaded them.  We went to Afghanistan to fight AQ, not the Taliban.   Strange though, the de facto leader of AQ, Ayman Zawahiri, sometimes known as Abu Dangerfield, has asked for Taliban figures along with his own jihadists in return for their captured hostage Warren Weinstein (the man most of America has never heard about). Wonder if any of those Taliban guys Zawahiri wanted were included in Obama's swap?

At any rate, Congressman Mike Rogers says the swap elevated the status of this barbaric cult army, and indeed it did.  That's one of the main reasons America had a policy of not negotiating with terrorists--at least publicly--to avoid placing the terrorists on the same level as us.   In truth Bergdahl was no POW, that requires the Taliban being seen as a legitimate government with a legitimate army.  No, he was a captured hostage held by terrorists, just like Weinstein, just like Daniel Pearl, just like Nick Berg.  But the administration has admitted that they want to legitimize these barbarians because they are important as a 'part of any future Afghanistan' in the 'reconciliation' process.   And that's what losing a war in the 21st century looks like.   

By the by, a couple of recent observations.

1.  Did the Taliban guys take up yoga in the big house?  If so, why should anyone believe they actually liked it?  After all, we are being told that anything traitorous that Bergdahl might have done could be dismissed on the account of Stockholm Syndrome and Bee Gees Syndrome (Stayin Alive). So maybe the Talibani headchoppers took up yoga to make themselves look harmless to the various brains running the government so they could go back home.

2.  We are getting leaks about Bergdahl from the VA hospital facility providing him quality affordable health care.   One, he doesn't like being addressed as "Sargeant".  That says something.  Two, he claims to have been kept in a box after trying to escape, which sort of confirms the Fox New James Rosen story from Dewey Clarridge that outraged so many on the left. 

3.  A band of 'militants', also known as 'gunmen', attacked the Karachi International Airport today.  Fortunately these militants, their motives completely unknown and unimaginable, didn't destroy any aircraft, according to the AP.  Except the one they did.  For those in the Kardashian set who've stumbled onto this blog by mistake (and are amazingly still reading), Karachi is in Pakistan--or you may know it as Pockeeston in Obamaspeak.  Evidently these militant gunmen had machine guns and RPGs and at least one suicide bomber.  Hmm, who could they be?  Franciscan Monks?  Maybe Hare Krishnas.  Hey, it was at an airport.   

Has anyone checked on Siddiqui lately?

An oldie from 2010:

Now, in the newest twist in the saga of the female terrorist dubbed “Lady al-Qaeda” by the New York press, Siddiqui’s family members have appealed to the Taliban to facilitate her release. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid declared last week:

Give us Siddiqui and we will give you captured U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl.

So apparently there are some terrorists the US would not trade for a man left behind.  For those who've forgotten or never knew, Siddiqui is a US-trained scientist arrested and convicted of terrorism. Her claim to fame is being married to Ammar al-Baluchi, yet another terrorist relative of KSM who is one of the main 9/11 defendants housed at Gitmo (evidently not available for trade but one never knows).  He hails from the Quetta area of Pakistan, a weird origin of hate for the US since the 90s, perhaps seeded by the Saudis.

Why bring this up?   The question now is who the US would consider trading for a captured American. Let's say somehow terrorists managed to capture John Kerry--who might Obama consider giving up to get him back?  He gave the Taliban five high level combatants for an Army private who might have deserted.  Are we going to just hope that never happens?  The 9/11/12 riots in Cairo were in part due to a demand to return the Blind Sheikh.   

Part of the delusion we're seeing now is an administration pulling off this swap as cog of 'ending the war' in Afghanistan, which involves flim-flamming the public into believing the Taliban isn't really a part of the global jihadist movement spearheaded by AQ and can therefore be separated into a single entity we can deal with directly like a legitimate political group.  In reality they know, or should know, the war is not going to be "over" just because we remove our troops from 'armed conflict' somewhere.

More Bergdahl

The stories coming out on the sergeant and his father are pegging the weird-stuff-o-meter.  From CBS News:

"But most of all, I'm proud of how much you wanted to help the Afghan people and what you were willing to do to go to that length," Bob Bergdahl said, choking up as his spoke. "I'll say it again: I'm so proud of how far you were willing to go to help the Afghan people. And I think you have succeeded. He did not explain what he meant by his comments.

Go help the people?  Succeeded?  Well, one explanation could be that he thinks his son deserted to help the Taliban, which would in turn help Afghan children by stopping us from 'air raiding villages and killing civilians' or the like.  Guess it depends on the meaning of "Afghan people".

It's tempting to jump full monty into thinking the worst here, but maybe there's a surprise ending.  Is it possible the father played a role, pretending to have sympathy and talking about getting prisoners out of GTMO or pandering to the "Islamic Emirate" to keep his slim hopes alive for his son's return, while son was playing a role to save his skin?  Yes.  Then again, the stuff coming from some soldiers makes it seem less likely:

"I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on," said former Sergeant Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."

It's hard to believe the son was playing a role if he walked off the base in that fashion.  Surely he wasn't acting on behalf of the intel agencies--losing other soldiers in the pursuit of finding him just to keep his cover protected would be outrageous.  It's certainly possible he was just a confused peacenik who realized he was a peacenik when he got to Afghan then checked out, not directly wanting to assist any enemies.  Maybe dad is still playing a role hoping the military will go easy.  But did he really need to open his comments with Arabic (or Pashto)?  

If Bergdahl is indeed a deserter who deliberately turned on America and was exchanged for 5 serious Taliban terrorists then the Saturday photo-op at the White House was one shameful event.  Not that such a thing is surprising-- it fits in with his overall philosophy of outreached hands to our foreign enemies and dovetails with the West Point speech and his overall promise to "end the war responsibly", which requires negotiating with terrorists not named "the GOP".  This, despite past words....

The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations?

That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

....words used to win an election so he could downsize the imperialistic military and transform America into the kind of socialist Utopia his father dreamed about, as discussed in the D'Souza movie.  He previewed what ending a war in the 21st century looks like to the cadets the other day; funny, it looks just like losing.  A new fight lies ahead--battling global warming. 

While it would have been hard to imagine the current state of affairs back in 2001, negotiating with the guys who helped AQ pull off 9/11, at least we got bin Laden and took out the terrorist government of Saddam Hussein.  Mughniyah and Arafat are gone, along with Saleh and Gaddafy.  Gaddafy's nuke program was smashed and some of Assad's WMDs are gone.  All that yellowcake sitting in Iraq has been moved. KSM is in lockup.  So there were some successes.  At the same time Iran is worse and Pakistan is no worse, while AQ has spread out far and wide.  We're considerably deeper in debt and unable to project as much power for good.  The populace is detached and divided.  The mother of all battles has yet to be decided, outside of Washington DC at least.  

At any rate, the questions will continue coming in--not about the VA scandal, which has now largely been erased from the headlines.  Not about the blowing of cover of the Kabul CIA Station Chief--that's under an internal investigation even though they know exactly who did it.  If Bergdahl wasn't a hero that will be bad, but it won't matter that Obama broke the law to get him out because like everything else, nothing will result.  The age of accountability ended on January 21, 2009.   There's still plenty of time left before it starts again.

MORE  6/2/14

Carney is on the air right now being grilled with marshmallow questions about all of this--of course he's rationalizing and saying that there's 'ample precedent' for such a thing in 'armed conflict'.  In other words, these morons somehow consider the war in Afghanistan somehow different than the overall GWoT.  That's a scary thought.

But here's another thought bubble.  If the administration didn't mind sending five Talibanis to Qatar in exchange for a possible deserter, why would they have any problem trading Ramzi Yousef, KSM or the Blind Sheikh if there were other questionable characters to bring back home?   Yousef claims he converted to Christianity, so surely Qatar could assure us he wouldn't go back to war again. 

MORE  6/3/14

This entire event is astounding, jaw dropping, really.  The administration spent the day arguing that this was not a hostage-terrorist situation, but a 'prisoner swap' in an 'armed conflict' and that the law was skirted due to a threat to Bergdahl.  That presumes a few things.

One, that this 'armed conflict' really has nothing to do with terrorism at all, it's just some war over there somewhere.  That's how Obama wants the vast Kardashian middle to see it, therefore he can end it without people feeling like we're still threatened--after all, the Taliban never attacked us!  That's like saying the Italians never attacked us in World War Two.

Two, if this was a 'prisoner' swap that means we just swapped "enemy combatants" (State Dept's designation) for a prisoner of war.  Does that mean the war on terror is actually a war, and are enemy combatants now just like regular combatants?

Three, the administration keeps referring to Sgt Bergdahl "getting the care he needs" at VA/DoD facilities.  How weird, coming only a day after General Shinseki was fired from the VA for allowing a scandal about other veterans (presumably not deserters) not getting the care they needed. 

Bergdahl Swap

Who isn't happy this soldier is reunited with his family? Who's truly happy with the way Obama did it?

America's official public policy has always been to never negotiate with terrorists. We've done it before, as have most other Western countries, in a back-room kind of way.  But never overtly.  Never celebratory, as Obama press announcement seemed.  This surely signals a policy change.  No matter to the politicians, all they think about are short term gains during a crisis.  Besides,

A U.S. officials stressed that the detainees were transferred after it was assessed that they did not present any threat to U.S.

How comforting.  Like Uncle Saddam--they probably like Doritos, too.  

As to the illegality of doing this, meh. The Commander in Chief should have latitude over such deals, which is why Obama included one of those evil signing statements (that he bashed Bush for doing) saying he had the latitude to ignore what the bill made illegal.  His response now is probably 'bring it on'.  They won't, they'll just make some noise, because they know a CinC should have this power.  It's his use of the power that is at issue.  

As to the timing, that's obvious.  Within a span of 24 hours after General Shinseki was forced to retire due to the VA mess they also fired said goodbye to their best friend Jay Carney, let it leak that golfer mega-star Phil Mickelson was under suspicion (not indictment or anything) of insider-trading, then rescued Bergdahl after five years.  A wee bit too convenient.

Not like they didn't need a diversion from the dead vets and what the VA scandal says about government-run health care in general.  Or the fact that someone known to the administration leaked the name of the Kabul CIA Station Chief last week.  Everything is political for these guys, so discounting their skill at running media diversions is as foolhardy as ignoring the media's predisposition to play along.

Meanwhile, here's some mug shots of the nice fellows released to the protection of Qatar (who once protected KSM before 9/11)..

Surely they are nice to animals, young boys and women.   

So.  We have a president who adamantly refused to negotiate with Republicans (who Biden called terrorists) in his own country over a debt ceiling deal who has now cavalierly changed American policy on dealing with real terrorists.  It's hard to think there's any silver lining.  The only possible hope is that these guys will be spied upon, followed, watched and tracked of their every movements.  Who knows, maybe they were injected with RFID chips during the sleepy time at GTMO.

Chances are Obama doesn't care they were among the group who helped AQ kill 2900+ Americans 13 years ago.  He doesn't mind that they coddled bin Laden allowing him to set up the attack, then refused to hand him over afterwards.  It's possible the administration has issued orders not to obliterate them once freed in order to keep the trust window open for more negotiations with the enemy.  Droning them would be a little tacky for a guy who's trying to lose the war responsibly.  Justice says they deserve to meet Allah sooner than later, like accidentally falling off that big skyscraper in Dubai.  Maybe someone will do the right thing eventually.

MORE  6/1/14

Various and sundry coming in from the bowels of the internets..

1.  Did the Kabul CIA Station Chief that was outed last week when Obama was in town know about this swap?

2.  Did the father grow the beard as a statement on getting his son back or in some kind of sympathy play?

3.  Panetta was offered the deal four years ago and turned it down according to Face the Nation.  That means the deal has variously been on the table for awhile.  That means the urgency mentioned by Hagel this morning was possibly more an urgency to deflect from the Shinseki firing.  Yes, they think we're that stupid.  And yes, they are that craven.

 

Obama says things about the Military, slays Strawmen

Today the President gave a speech in front of a bunch of West Point cadets.  But he was really addressing his enemies, ie, the Tea Party and most Republicans.   He warned they should not believe their lying eyes because America has never been so strong in the world. 

The speech was probably more confusing than the Isla Vista shooter's diatribe, bouncing around from one policy position to another with the requisite number of if's and's and but's covering all bases. But in a nutshell:

Bush sucked.  I'm not Bush, or even George Washington, who was an isolationist--I'm a success because I won't commit troops to war for flimsy things like Bush, who was dumb and sucked.  I will never turn our back from a fight unless there's a chance of civilian casualties, in which I'll employ our smart power of coalitions, partners, diplomacy, butterflies, warm cookies and KFC regular recipe buckets.  But wait!  As to those climate change deniers, we shall fight those bastards on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender! 

When in trouble, pivot to the old standby.  Meanwhile in the real world, a group of chemical weapons inspectors were attacked yesterday on their way to visit a possible chlorine gas attack near Damascus, Syria..

An international team sent to investigate allegations that chlorine gas had been used as a weapon in Syria’s civil war came under attack on Tuesday, forcing it to abort its mission to reach a village where numerous such attacks have been reported.

Chlorine attack?  Didn't we have a smart power deal with Putey Poot?   Apparently the 160,000 dead Syrians, largely civilians, must be the reason we didn't send any troops.  And maybe that's why the Prez dressed down a female White House reporter for daring to ask whether we've got any troops in Qatar training the Syrian rebels, who will one day end up fighting or converting to AQ as soon as Assad's number is up.  But not core AQ.      

In other news, Thailand remains under martial law and the State Dept warned all Americans to leave peaceful, liberated Libya for some reason.  But fear not, unlike all those Republicans screaming for him to send troops to Libya and Thailand, Obama will not, because he's George Washington.  Besides, our real battle is against Joseph Kony, and the fight continues until it's over.  

Terrorism Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Various

Two major stories yesterday, one superseded by the other.  The Morell Benghazi testimony was set to makes some news, at least on Fox and some AM stations, but once again a Benghazi story about the "talking points" was trumped by a bigger story, this time at Fort Hood.

Just a word on the shooting.  Early reporting indicated multiple shooters, as happens in almost every such event, but later updates clearly pegged Lopez as the proverbial "lone nut".  It was reported he killed himself, and jihadists don't normally kill themselves unless the act will take a whole bunch of innocents with them.  But the early explanation of this self-induced demise was a little perplexing:

He was eventually confronted by a military police officer in a parking lot. He put his hands up but then pulled a gun from under his jacket. “She [the officer] engaged,” Milley said, and then the soldier put the gun to his head and shot himself.

The word 'engaged' was ambiguous as it wasn't at all clear whether she fired.  In the midst of an active shooter it would make little sense for an MP, with gun drawn, to stand there idly and let Lopez go from raised hands to grabbing his weapon and firing, even at himself.  But today that record was corrected:

He declined to identify the MP or the chaplain, but said the military police officer was within 20 feet of Lopez when he put up his hands, and then reached for his gun. "She engaged him with small arms fire at which time the shooter fire a self inflicted gunshot wound," he said. "She did fire her weapon," Milley said at another point.

Which makes more sense.

But it also leaves hanging as to whether she hit him or not.  Not sure it would make a difference since it still looks like Lopez was a lone nut either way, but it might say something about motive and intent.  It certainly might say something about the heroism of the MP's actions.  It does not appear the military is trying to hide anything but they could have reported that she had fired last night. 

___________________

As to the Benghazi story, for some people the only possible scandal left is whether the administration tried to cover up AQ involvement in a terrorist attack a few weeks after the Democrats told America that bin Laden was dead and AQ was on the run. Sharyl Attkisson is writing on her own now (still like a journalist) and provides some testimony highlights. This stood out:

“I did not take al Qaeda from the talking points,” Morell said. When asked who did, he answered, “The group of officers from our office of Congressional affairs and our office of public affairs.” Previously, government officials had vehemently denied that any public affairs officials made any edits to the talking points.

Morell did acknowledge personally removing the word “Islamic” from the phrase “Islamic extremists” in the talking points and says he did it for two reasons: so as not to further inflame passions in the Islamic world and because “what other kind of extremists are there in Libya?”

There you go--the text was changed by a 'congressional' and 'public' affairs squad, no doubt based on pressure from State cough Hillary.  Since these people were technically "CIA", they can say the CIA changed their own talking points.  Technically we're no closer to who made any ultimate calls. 

Attkisson also mentions the curious power of Morell over Petraeus, the former who seemed to be calling the shots on the talking points.  That does sound weird.  As if the general was compromised or something.  Anyway, it appears that the Democrats have dodged another bullet on this event.  The more they dodge, the longer they survive.  Unlike female investigative reporters at CBS News, for instance. 

MORE  4/3/14

Fortunately the two excellent female investigative reporters for Fox News haven't been run off their own airwaves for aggressive fact-finding.  This story by Catherine Herridge is a must-read synopsis of Morell's testimony, including the BLOCKBUSTER admission that yes, AQ was involved in the attack and they knew it almost right away.

Morell claims that because their sources were classified they couldn't publicly release it, which doesn't sqaure with some other testimony, but the bigger question is why the administration--knowing this about AQ--allowed Susan Rice and Jay Carney to weave their fables about the protest.  And that, my friends, is where the scandal lies, if there is a scandal here.  

But again, just like Jon Karl's exclusive on the talking points was eclipsed by the IRS targeting story, the Fort Hood shooting has eclipsed what should have been a big story here.  As Herridge points out, Morells' testimony completely shoots down the New York Times story from a few months ago stating that AQ had no part in the attack. 

Obama Renders Foreign Terrorist to Secret Interrogation Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Very Imaginable, Unfortunately

Here's the CinC's short message today about the Navy Yard shooting..



Notice his phrasing (after lamenting about 'another mass shooting')..

"..they know the dangers of serving abroad, but today they faced the unimaginable violence that they wouldn't have expected here at home"

Well yes, had they no knowledge of what happened at Fort Hood. or LITTLE ROCK.   Sort of like this CNN anchorette.  There was certainly precedence, regardless of how both events have been spun. 

Also, in saying we would 'do everything we can to try to prevent them', ie, mass shootings or whatever this turns out to be, he seems to be hinting that something can be done to stop crazed jihadies or lunatics bent on murder-suicide or just plain mass murder.  Ironically he used the same language after Benghazi over a year ago--how we were going to investigate to prevent such events from ever happening again--and nobody is currently in custody.   But it's pretty clear what he means. 

Time to Testify

Flashback to September 10th and 11th, 2012, before the Benghazi attack occurred....



Thomas Joscelyn had an in-depth piece on this at Weekly Standard reprising his work at Longwarjournal, basically pointing out the mindset leading up to September 11th--and why it wasn't about some dopey film clip.   It was about getting certain terrorists out of jail through an equally dopey peace treaty offered up by Zawahiri through his bro wherein the west surrenders and retreats and the Islamists stop killing everyone.

All of this precursor material, including the Stevens diary found after the event, was glossed over in the months after the attack, taken care of by some awesomely ethical Accountability Review Board picked by Hillary, despite the fact the Secretary of State wasn't even interviewed for it.  The ARB report placed all the emphasis on bureaucratic actions or failures leading up to the event, conveniently taking the spotlight off the political 'calculus', which was essentially that bin Laden was dead and GM was alive.   

The next question is on Wednesday--what is going to happen to overshadow this testimony? 

Gitmo Update--Torture!

Wow, why isn't this a front-page headline? 

Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay say they are being denied access to drinking water as a hunger strike grinds on and apparently grows at the U.S. base in Cuba. An emergency court filing based on complaints from a Yemeni prisoner says guards have refused to provide bottled water to hunger strikers and told the men to drink from taps in their cells. The motion filed in Washington also alleges that the temperatures in the prison have been kept at "extremely frigid" temperatures.

As of this post none of the mainstream news sites, including Fox, were heralding the story. Or this one:

President Barack Obama famously promised in early 2009 to close the US military's detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba within 12 months. But new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is instead considering a proposal from his top commanders to spend $195.7 million renovating it and erecting a new prison building.

Bold added because, damn.   And as usual, we are shocked, shocked.