Classified Relativism

The NY Times has an interesting feature today on former diplomat Robin Raphel, charged last year with delivering classified information to Pakistan.  Why interesting?  Because, as the story notes, the case against Raphel has "fizzled".  Hmm, as the bloggers say.

The Times goes on to mention numerous figures on the right and left who've been involved in mishandling classified information--yes, even Hillary.  For some reason they forgot to mention "Obama's favorite general" Hoss Cartwright, a person of interest in leaking Stuxnet intelligence on Iran to the media.  At last check that had fizzled due to complexities with the Iran nuke deal or something. 

That aside, it's been well-reported that the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers than all other administrations combined, mostly lower level folks.  The Times article notes that current FBI Director James Comey was a little upset with the Justice Department's deal with General Petraueus as they feared it might set precedence for future cases--indeed that's exactly what Raphel's defense team seems to be doing.  But who cares about Raphel, right?  How does this relate to anything else?     

The cynic might say this points in one direction--the Clinton server in Chappaqua.  The cynic might also say the left needs a way to dumb-down the severity of mishandling classified information with their leading 2016 hopeful in the situation she's in.  So, have the media point to the relativism of past prosecutions and make everything muddy with hopes the peeps can get past such peccadillos worthy of putting lesser luminaries in Leavenworth.  Is that what's going on here?   

By the way, in a previous mention here of Ms Raphel there was a link to this 1996 LA Times story.  It's truly one of those "must-reads" from the past that shines light on how messed up things got later.  A snip, emphasis added:

And a Taliban official, Shirmohammed Stanekzai, gave public assurances this week that under the Islamic militia's rule, this country will no longer serve as a training ground or haven for foreign extremists. "As the Islamic movement of Taliban, we don't want to interfere in others' affairs," Stanekzai said. "We don't want to send people to create problems in other countries."

If foreign terrorists fall into the Taliban's hands, he said, "we will punish them hard."

Such words--uttered at a news conference for the foreign media, which have flocked to Kabul since the Taliban captured this capital last Friday--will be sweet music for officials in Washington. Combating terrorism and the global trade in narcotics are leading items on the U.S. foreign policy agenda.

The current conspiracy theories are understandable, even plausible, given the great mystery that still shrouds the Taliban's rise and rapid advance. How did a ragtag force that emerged in late 1994 among Muslim religious students in the southern region of Kandahar and adjacent areas of Pakistan grow so quickly that two years later, it has become master of three-quarters of Afghanistan?

Who paid for its weaponry, ammunition and vehicles? Who organized its training and logistics? Is intelligence or military assistance received from outside one of the reasons the Taliban has enjoyed astonishing, and relatively bloodless, successes over experienced moujahedeen commanders who, for nearly a decade, fought occupying Soviet troops?

Generous support for the Taliban from Pakistan, which wants to pacify its war-racked neighbor for its own strategic and economic motives, has been well documented. But is Pakistan's powerful ally, the United States, also involved in some way? Many in Kabul believe so, though again, their proof is circumstantial.

Notice the LAT refers to it as a conspiracy theory, but who remembers hearing that the Clinton administration propped up the Taliban back before 9/11?  Surely Ms Raphel has a memory of it.  Maybe she has a book in her?   And maybe Robert Redford can do another "truth" movie about this whole thing... maybe get Valerie Plame to star as Ms Raphel.  If they get to work soon they can have it out right after Hillary gets the nomination.  

Good News or Bad News?

It's tempting to lay this story on the Obama people.  After all, they just made a nuclear deal with a country that has apparently released five top AQ operatives being held under house arrest in exchange for one of their diplomats captured in Yemen by AQ.

It sounds bad.  It may end up being bad.  But there's a slim possibility it's not all bad.  Iran has released AQ operatives under house arrest before, including bin Laden's son Saad, some of whom were later killed or captured.   One of the Khorasan members operating in Syria and recently killed were previously held in Iran as well. 

A lot depends on how this deal was done.  Evidently they were negotiating with someone in AQ, who had the Iranian diplomat under control somewhere.  And the five operatives have apparently not been swapped to anyone, only released from their house arrest.  They may still be in Iran, or may be trying to sneak away.  

But if there was a deal done, say a side deal as part of Iran's agreement to the nuke deal (and us freeing up over a billion they can use to fund their own proxy terrorists), this may have been the way it was done.  Obviously Iran cannot be seen handing over AQ terrorists to AQ nor can the West be seen making deals with terrorist masters for other terrorist hostages in exchange for more money for their own terrorists.         

So the jury is still out.  If there was a deal it's probably not unprecedented--Pakistan evidently took out a long-wanted AQ operative in their country last year only days after a Pakistani general came to Washington to collect on millions in aid money for the Pakistani Army.    Adnan el-Shukrijumah was a reported high level operative, pilot, and someone the government called very dangerous.  He had been wanted since 9/11 (according to the FBI he is still wanted).  Then suddenly after some money changed hands he was reported to be pushing up daisies.  Funny how that works.  

But that's the way this entire war on terrorism has worked...bodies of lies interspersed within truths and half-truths.  It appears some countries are not only holding US citizens and other westerners as hostages, but also holding AQ members for ransom as well.  Maybe Iran got what they wanted in the deal and part of it was them quietly releasing all their AQ hole cards so we can have access to kill them.

Or maybe this is just another in-your-face-Obama move by the Ayatollahs after they got their deal, like sending General Quds Force to Moscow to make a deal with Putin on Assad in Syria while knowing our position is that he 'must go'.  Or telling the press that Israel will be gone in 25 years, praise Allah, death to America.  Guess we will see.

Go back in the hole, Seymour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MORE  5/11/15

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

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

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

MORE  5/12/15

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

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

FUNNY, THAT  5/12/15

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dead Terrorists Update

We've seen a recent rash of reports on most-wanted terrorists and enablers going tango uniform.   Are they real?

For instance, before Christmas it was reported that AQ number three Adnan Shukrijumah, known also as "Jafar the Pilot", considered a particularly dangerous terrorist, was killed by Pakistani troops in a raid in Pakistan (shortly after the US promised another large sum of support money to that country).  After a few weeks Shukrijumah disappeared off the Rewards for Justice site run by the State Department, but he still appears on the FBI's most-wanted terrorist list.  Reasons--they are still confirming it.  Rather amazing, since they had the body and DNA testing doesn't take that long.  Just think back to bin Laden, it was done almost immediately.  Not sure why they wouldn't have shouted it from the rooftops the day after. Instead the administration didn't want anything to do with any questions about it.        

Also, there was the long sought-after former second in command of the Iraqi Ba'ath regime, Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, who was reported to be helping ISIS.  He was reported killed in a shelling near Tikrit about a week ago.  It made a flurry of news, then quickly vaporized from the news cycle.   The Iraqi government was supposed to be doing DNA testing to confirm.  In the interim a Shiite Hizballah group has claimed it's "100 percent" certain it was him based on their own tests.  You can view the corpse here--does this really look like the body of an over 70 year old man?  No bruises or bullet holes.  Does it bear a perfect resemblance to Izzat? Not really, but there is some.  Al-Duri was a rare Arab redhead, but keep in mind old Jihadists often die their beards red.  And again, the administration downplayed any questions from the press about him rather than doing the usual end-zone dance.   His loss would seemingly be a big blow to ISIS, yet nothing.  Strange. 

Finally the news today that the US blew away two most-wanted AQ terrorists, Adam aka "Azzam the American" Gadahn, and Ahmed Farouq, both American citizens on the wanted list.   Both were hit in separate non-targeted drone strikes on AQ camps--somewhere--they aren't saying very much.  The American hostage Warren Weinstein was also killed in the Farouq raid, which prompted a sort of unusual apology today from the president, taking great pains to convey that he was responsible and where the buck stopped, as if this wasn't already a given.  Of course it has never been a given, which is why this was weird. 

The White House presser today was fairly weird as well, with Josh Earnest promising unbelievable awesome transparency on the record about these deaths, then proceeding to provide almost no details about the raids due to operational security concerns.   Many journalists quizzed Earnest on whether the kills were within US law.  Maybe Loretta Lynch will decide this, after she gets through deciding on prosecuting Lois Lerner or investigating Hillary's shenanigans.  In reality it's possible he was trying to explain the tragic loss without admitting they are casualties of 'war', because the 'wars' are over, responsibly ended by Obama.  So if we aren't at war, why are we still air-raiding villages and killing civilians?    

One factoid--Mr Weinstein was mentioned many times by AQ leader Ayman Zawahiri, demanding captured AQ terrorists in exchange among other concessions, so it will be interesting to see whether the secrecy and stealth used today, and perhaps the reason they announced this today after 3 months, has something to do with pinpointing AQ Numero Uno and not just covering some hiney.  

 

Where is the Red-Headed Terrorist?

The fate of Syrian-born Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, aka Abu Musab al-Suri, aka the 'red-headed terrorist', remains unclear.  Back when the Syrian Arab Spring uprising began a few years ago, press reports suggested Assad had him in lockup and would release him if the United States didn't stop meddling or calling for regime change.

After that threat failed to stop the uprising it was reported that he was released.  Then recently it was reported again he was still incarcerated.

Why is he significant?  In the past few days images have come out of Bin Laden's Tora Bora hideout, in which Setmariam is seen beside UBL many times.  National Journal's Michael Hirsh once called him "the next bin Laden".  

Daily Mail even mentions his theory of small jihad on a large scale, something which seems to be in its infancy all around the world now.  He's also reported to have been behind the planning of the UK subway/bus attacks and perhaps the Madrid train bombings back in 2004.  So it might be helpful to know where he is.

By the way, the (other) western looking dude sitting to UBL's left is Gwynne Roberts, a British documentary filmmaker who wanted to do a story about the sheikh before he was well known. 


Regarding another dangerous terrorist, Adnan El-Shukrijumah has disappeared off the State Department's Rewards for Justice site but remains on the FBI's Most-Wanted Terrorists site.  Not sure if that's significant or just bureaucracy in action.  

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. 

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?  

Fall Guy

I have vowed to quit this blogging stuff over and over, since few are reading and nothing ever changes.  But somehow the events of the day always seem to force another post, so here we go.

Soon-to-be former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was recently quizzed by CNN's Barbara Starr about his role in releasing GITMO terrorists, er, armed insurgents, and whether he was being pressured by the White House in doing so.  Pay close attention to what he says about certification of release of detainees:




Now, watch White House press sec Josh Earnest answer a question about the GITMO release of the Taliban Five, making a point to name Hagel as the guy who signed off on the Taliban 5 releases...

It doesn't take George Will to figure out what's going on here. The White House, for political reasons, needs to close GITMO. They really don't care who they release in getting there other than the top few thugs like KSM (who they want transferred to US for trial) because after all, America has a big military-intelligence apparatus and can handle any blow-back.  But in doing so they likely don't want to expose any trusted Democratic ally to the liability of signing off on the releases in case one of them ends up participating in a future attack.  Looks bad for the brand. 

So they make a big to-do of announcing a 'bi-partisan' pick for Secretary of Defense, Republican Chuck Hagel.  His pick came with several juicy side benefits as well--he was the guy who generally hated Bush, thought the Iraq war was dumb and later had a dust-up with McCain and other fellow GOP Senators. He was also a distinguished veteran who could shame any GOP chickenhawk.

That's the kind of person they wanted signing off on the GITMO release forms (and overseeing military budget cuts and retreats), not Dem loyalists like Leon Panetta.  Maybe Hagel didn't realize this when he came in the door, maybe it took awhile, maybe he did but in the process of serving with these guys changed his mind.  But he clearly knows it now and seems to be upset about it to the point of making it known to the press.

One could easily blame his confession on CYA politics or perhaps a tell-all book in the offing, but it may be something more. His general message is that the administration is trying to release terrorists too fast without enough concern about their future threat, and he didn't feel comfortable doing that. One has to wonder whether the same kind of mentality entered into the apparent decision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to clandestinely send an emissary to negotiate with Gaddafy's moderate Muslim son Saif back when Obama was trying to save Benghazi?

If so, it begs the question as to whether some high level military folks in this country are questioning the foreign policy decisions of this administration to the point of them being dangerous, feeling the need to push the envelope by sidestepping the chain of command, which is unheard of and certainly a huge story should the MSM ever notice.  Yes, some of it right now could be Hillary 2016! politics, but it wasn't back then outside the possibility Hillary herself was trying to appear tough for her upcoming run, which was perhaps part of the concern.  

Add to that the story today about Rand Paul relaying details of a meeting in 2013 where the president told GOP leaders about Hillary being handed Libya, which suggests Obama was somewhat disengaged to the point of being deceived by Hillary about the threat to Benghazi resulting in an illegal war based on 'imminent threat'.  Even now we see that politics so rules this administration that they've gone into denial on whether the Taliban is a terrorist entity or not, calling them an "armed insurgency" in displays of pretzel logic like this...


All to pave the way for some kind of delusional 'end of conflict' (the reason they traded Bergdahl) so they can make peace with the Taliban, blame Bush, and move on to social justice and income redistribution before it's too late.  

To be sure, this isn't the first time a WH has fought with outside forces on controlling the narrative. They want it focused on whatever domestic thingy Obama is pushing at any given time. Right now it's 'the middle class' (odd, since he wasn't focusing on that before the mid-term elections), or generally ANYTHING but foreign policy and terrorism.  But too much denial of national security threats in the same of domestic politics can be dangerous, as many at the highest levels well know.

Terror List Update

As of this post both the State Department Rewards for Justice and FBI most-wanted terrorist websites still show AQ bigwig Adnan el-Shukrijumah as a wanted terrorist, despite his reported death in Pakistan back in early December.   Wonder why?

Have they learned nothing?

This was the large font headline glaring on CNN that triggered this post..

Why?

Why does any reputable news organization even need to ask after everything that has occurred since 9/11?

And yet here they are, blasting such a lame ass question on the web page as if this action was somehow beneath the Talibani warriors, our noble trading partners for Beau Bergdahl.   All while the Democrats give the bastards who drew up the 9/11 attack a report on how they were interrogated.  Which mainstream media anchors will probably refer to as upholding American values.   Hands up, don't shoot, I can't breathe, indeed.

Somebody finally asked...

...the White House to clarify whether top tier core-AQ terrorist Adnan Shukrijumah was killed in a raid by the Pakistanis last weekend or not:  



It's pretty amazing the White House spokesman would have to 'take the question' to get Major Garrett some 'clarity' on whether the guy is dead or not.  Don't they know by now?  Why wouldn't they be heralding it as a major blow in the GWoT?  Garrett was saying that CBS News was getting their confirmation from senior government officials.  But both the Rewards for Justice and FBI most-wanted terrorist sites show no change.

I don't pretend to know what's going on here.  I do know that many terrorists have "died" and come back to life--the most recent being the Khorasan (Core-AQ) bomb maker supposedly killed by US air strikes in Syria last month but now reportedly still alive.  So proclaiming AQ leaders dead, especially when the Pakistanis are involved, is probably risky.     

MORE, AND IT'S UNBELIEVABLE  12/12/14

Here's another clip of a US Government official being asked to confirm the death of Shukrijumah..



She's fumbling around over details about the death of a major Core-AQ terrorist?   Hmmm.

Why is the administration downplaying this?   Most believe he was killed.  Could it be something to do with the Pakistan-US relationship?  As Garrett pointed out, it sounds like a positive development. Yet the spokespeople are giving nothing.  It's been a week, they clearly have no intention of using this as PR.  So why not?   

Could it be because Shukrijumah allegedly crossed the US-Mexico border several times--even possibly flying an aircraft into a US airport--before his demise?  And that the administration would rather lose the PR value from the killing of a major AQ kingpin than admit that said kingpin was crossing the 'secure' southern border?  And targeting Oprah, of all people!  Yeah, must be the latter.

Notice also how no US journalists smell a story here.  None of them followed up on Garrett's question to Earnest; none followed up on the Arab journalist's question to Psaki.  So the story about the takeout of a major Core-AQ terrorist is just going to vaporize into the ether.  

Shukrijumah Nailed?

Most people are probably saying "Shukra who?" For that reason this story won't produce much positive PR for the administration--not as much as it should.  But the US intelligence people know all about Adnan Gulshair el-Shukrijumah and if the story is confirmed they were high-fiving each other this morning...

An Al-Qaeda leader accused of planning to bomb the London Underground and New York Metro has been killed during a raid in Pakistan, the country's military said. Adnan el Shukrijumah, chief of global operations for the terrorist group, was killed along with two other suspected militants in Shinwarsak, South Waziristan, early this morning.

The 'most wanted' terrorist was found hiding in a compound after fleeing from a North Waziristan tribal district where the army launched a major operation against militant bases in June.

This guy was alternately called "Jafar the Pilot" among others, but whatever name he was called they always considered him one of the most dangerous "Core-AQ" guys still on the loose.   Ashcroft once called him "a clear and present danger".  He was alleged to have been behind a plot to bomb subways here in the U.S. in 2009.  Before that he was linked with fellow Floridian Jose Padilla in a the dirty bomb plot.  He's been linked with the Saudi conspiracy.  And in the so-called far right lunatic orbits he was even alleged to have been involved in the anthrax letter attacks of 2001.  That's the kind of Carmen Sandiego figure he was.

Long War Journal once called him an AQ subject-matter-expert on North America before the bin Laden raid, where after he was reported to have been elevated to a senior AQ position.  He's definitely a number three or four man in that outfit.

He's also been mentioned lately on the web, one just a week ago via Judicial Watch involving a 2010 plan to attack Oprah Winfrey's studio and the Sears Willis Tower in Chicago. El-Shukrijumah allegedly met with terrorist operators in a planning meeting near El Paso prior to the event and perhaps again about another plot in March of this year.  Guess it's not wise to be caught messing with Oprah.

Weirdly, the administration has not confirmed or commented on this yet.  Pakistan is reporting it and most of the major networks have picked up their press release, so it's hard to believe this is a ruse.  The NY Times has an interesting factoid:

It comes just over a week after a trip to Washington by the Pakistani Army chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif, who met with Secretary of State John Kerry and American military leaders in a visit intended to repair a strategic relationship that has long been scarred by acrimony and mistrust.

Hey, that's the same John Kerry who recently begged Diane Feinstein not to release the Bush terror report--at least not yet--to protect some sensitive relations overseas. Hmm, the Democrats desperately need that report out before Christmas or the GOP congress coming in next year will likely mothball it forever. What did that Pakistani general talk about with Kerry?  Does this help clear the path?   And if so, was it really that easy to take this sucker out all along?

If you're still not convinced this relatively unknown terrorist was a big fish try reading this. Also, the first time Shukrijumah was mentioned in a post here about 4 years ago there were visits from about every alphabet agency in the United States, the first and last time that has happened.  Obviously they were trolling the depths of the web looking for anything they could find on the guy.

At any rate, if there's any doubt about this it will probably be shortly erased. His brother and mother still live in Florida, and somebody will surely be asking for comments. According to them he's been out on a pilgrimage for Allah, selling Korans, etc.   So we'll see.

MORE  12/6/14

Normally I don't post WND stories due to their less-than-spectacular reputation, but that doesn't mean they are always wrong.  They've been on the Shukrijumah story for a long time, so let's cut to some quotes. First, regards the recent visit by the Pakistani general:

It comes days after Pakistani army Chief Gen. Raheel Sharif returned from a week-long visit of the U.S., the first by an army chief in four years. On Thursday, the U.S. Congress extended $1 billion in operational support to the Pakistani army despite recent tensions and mistrust. 

So on Thursday the Congress ponys up a billion to Paki, then on Friday night the Pakistani military suddenly finds and kills one of the top AQ terrorists in the world, after all these years. Amazing.

In April 2001, Shukrijumah spent 10 days in Panama, where he reportedly met with al-Qaida officials to assist in the planning of 9/11.

That's a new one on me.  But one of his advantages was said to be his ability to blend in with Central/South Americans.  More..

Following 9/11, el-Shukrijumah was reportedly singled out by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to spearhead the next great attack on America.

The fact this story isn't A1 number one shows how far away terrorism is slipping from the minds of Americans.  Not a bad thing, but it can be.  The odd thing is the lack of response from the White House--they may be waiting for absolute confirmation but this news, more than anything else, supports the idea that "core" AQ is actually on the run and decimated. AQ isn't dead by a long-shot, but the Afghanistan franchise just took a body blow.

MORE  12/7/14

Not surprisingly Peter Bergen writing in CNN celebrates the death and all but licks the president's private parts while declaring an already decimated Core AQ decimated.  Michelle Malkin, one of the few writers who've covered the Shukrijumah story over a number of years, is not as convinced.

She's correct about AQ and other terror leaders tending to die and come back as zombies, only to die again and come back.  The most notable might be Iraqi Izzat al-Douri, who has "died" at least twice (maybe more) since the 2003 invasion only to recently be implicated as a cog in the wheels of ISIS.

It is kind of weird that the US has not weighed in yet.  Rewards for Justice and the FBI terror web sites still show Shukrijumah as alive and wanted as of the time of this post.  Maybe the webmasters don't work the weekend. We'll see what happens Monday.

Meanwhile, this story from the Times is interesting:

LONDON — In a fresh spur to warming relations between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States, the American military has returned to Pakistan a senior militant leader who was captured under murky circumstances last year and whose case symbolized the deep distrust between the three countries.

Pakistani and Western officials said the United States had flown Latif Mehsud, a senior Pakistani Taliban leader being held by the Americans at Bagram Airfield, back to Pakistan on Friday. Mr. Mehsud’s release was ostensibly part of an continuing process to repatriate foreign prisoners from American detention facilities in Afghanistan before the conclusion of the formal combat mission at the end of this month.

So the US repatriated Mehsud, a captured top level Talibani (whom they actually captured from Afghanistan/Karzai govt after they had captured him from the Taliban) while also forking over a billion dollars to the Paks on Friday.  Less than a day later the Pakistanis reportedly take out a top level AQ operator who has eluded capture since 9/11.

Then today the US reportedly used drones in Pakistani territory to allegedly take out another top level AQ figure along with four top tier Taliban guys..

A top al-Qaeda leader was among five militants killed today in a US drone attack in Pakistan’s troubled North Waziristan region, a day after the chief of the terror group’s global operations was also killed in a Pakistani military operation.

Umer Farooq, believed to be in charge of al-Qaeda’s operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, was killed in the strike that took place in the Khar Tangi area of Datta Khel district in the region, where the Pakistani military has been battling Taliban and al-Qaeda-linked militants since June. A security official said Farooq was among five people killed when two missiles fired from the drone hit a compound.

Farooq is not listed on the AQ most-wanted sites, so if he was a bigshot he wasn't worth much money.  But obviously something changed very recently and this horse-trading is what success looks like now.  It would be nice to see a body or two.

Meanwhile the story about the capture of the AQ operative sent to Libya by Zawahiri to set up an AQ branch after Daffy was taken out (and before Benghazi) remains in a black media hole.  Long War's Tom Joscelyn explains the significance.  Of course, the big story yesterday was the failed hostage rescue in Yemen.

All this activity must mean something.  Again, the Democrats are desperate to get their torture report out before the Senate shuts down for the year, which according to outgoing Senator Udall will 'shock and disgust' the American people.  But it's not going to do much shocking or disgusting if AQ and ISIS terrorists are simultaneously lopping off heads and killing hostages, while WMD-linked terrorists are still running around loose with intentions of blowing up Oprah Winfrey's studios.  So it looks like some loose ends are trying to be tied up quick. 

Risen's Strangely Timed Story on Jund'allah

What an odd story to lead the Sunday NY Times...

Some federal officials blame Mr. McHale for what they describe as an operation that veered out of control. They said that if the United States and Jundallah had too close a relationship, Mr. McHale’s go-it-alone attitude was to blame. But friends and former colleagues say this characterization of Mr. McHale as a rogue operator is unfair.

They point out that the relationship persisted for more than a decade, and Mr. McHale’s actions were approved and applauded by several United States agencies over those years. “I’m not sure what to say about this case,” said Mr. Holt, who is retiring from Congress this year. “Everything is plausible in the freewheeling intelligence world.”

Risen and Apuzzo characterize this Port Authority officer as a sort of real-life Dirty Harry, a brusque street-wise operator who can't follow rules or norms but gets intelligence for the frustrated pencil necks at HQ and the Major's office.  He sounds like a hero. So why are they offhandedly trashing him? And why now?  And why top left page one of their internet version?

One thing we know is that it's another in a series of stories from mainly left-leaning reporters about the Bush administration's relationship with Jund'allah.  The first ones came out around 2007 and were used to suggest the US was working with AQ terrorists against Iran.  Seymour Hersh, who wrote about it during the Bush years, has largely been the only one amongst his peers willing to suggest similar cozy arrangements with Sunni terrorists in Libya and Syria.
 
Anyway, just a coincidence on a slow news day?  Commenters at the Times story point to a convenient timing issue--we are coming up on a November 24th deadline to agree to a nuclear deal with Iran through the P5+1 group.  If no deal materializes then Obama will be staring down yet another self-imposed red line, which stated that Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons--that it would be a game-changer.  He has never formally taken military operations off the table, remember.

But really, Obama bomb-bomb-bombing Iran?  How likely is that? 

Then again, he can't afford to cross another one of his own imposed red lines and retain any semblance of a positive foreign policy legacy.  So it would seem that something needs to happen, soon.   Hopefully that something didn't involve screwing a patriotic Port Authority officer who cultivated intelligence about Iran's nuke program in an effort to sweeten a deal with the Ayatollahs.  Because if he'd do that, he might do other worse stuff. 

At the same time it's interesting to see the Times reporting on Balochistan, the veritable Twilight Zone of the GWoT. They point out that KSM is a native Baloch without pointing out that his nephew Ramzi, who tried to take out the WTC in 1993, is also a native.  It's never been explained as to why people in this remote region hated America so much.

Laurie Mylroie claimed the Sunnis of that region collaborated with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, hinting at a long-running tie with Iraqi intelligence, hinting that there might be a tie between AQ and Iraq.  Jund'allah seems more interested in knocking out the Ayatollahs than enemies abroad, but taking out Tehran was on Saddam's bucket list, too. So there's that.  Taliban leaders also sheltered in Quetta after our invasion in 2001, the same place Jund'allah operators have used.  Maybe McHale knew how to connect a few of those dots.

Investigations Update

What happened to Obama's favorite general?

A senior Obama administration official told the Washington Post that the former deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is being investigated by the Justice Department for allegedly leaking information about the computer virus Stuxnet, which was part of the Olympic Games campaign.

He lost his clearance later in 2013.  But the last anyone has heard about this case was this past summer when one Jofi Joseph, fired from the White House in 2013 for running a Twitter account critical of his bosses, which included naming advisor Ben Rhodes as a possible leaker candidate, refused to comment about it.

The former White House national security official who was fired last year after being unveiled as the snarky anonymous tweeter behind the NatSecWonk account declined to comment on Thursday about his exploits and previous accusations that another senior official leaked classified U.S. intelligence information.

It might be nice to know why he thought Rhodes was the snitch. The media certainly has no curiosity.

Meanwhile, the media has had some curiosity about the FBI investigation involving former diplomat Robin Raphel, best known as the ex-wife of the late Ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Raphel, best known for being killed in a mysterious plane crash with Pakistani president Zia ul-Haq in the late 80s. Ms. Raphel is described as a friend of Pakistan, even "Lady Taliban" (wow read this story), and an enemy of India, at least by the Indians. Curious, since the relationship between India and Obama hasn't exactly been buttery smooth. Could this be a fig leaf or is it something else ?

Finally, in the process of reading Sharyl Attkisson's book "Stonewalled" something strikes me about her, both in her TV appearances and by reading the first 30 pages of the book--she seems like a person who might be a bit Aspergery, at least in some areas.  For instance, she seems oblivious to the real world of quid pro quo and looking out for number one as she plows forward running down what she calls 'puzzles'.  That kind of singular focus got her called a pit bull, but Asperger's people tend to be narrowly focused on certain subjects while taking things literally.  She also recently said she isn't part of any social circles (ie, most high profile national journalists are often heavily involved with the people they report via social circles, marriage, etc). 

If so it's actually an awesome quality for a journalist to have.  They should all be that way.  Of course, it also tends to piss off almost everyone, ie, her anecdote about the White House calling her unreasonable.  It would also tend to make her fight the harassment instead of looking out for number one and backing down, which itself could be dangerous.   We'll see.

A Tale of Two Hostages

The story of David Rohde, a reporter for the New York Times who escaped capture by the Taliban several years ago, has never been sufficiently told to the American people.   Part of the reason seems to be because of what happened behind the scenes, which makes the mainstream press appear even more unbelievably hypocritical and duplicitous than they already are.

For instance, here's how Wikipedia explains a massive press blackout engineered by the Times to help save Mr. Rohde:

Rohde's kidnapping was kept quiet by much of the world's media following a request from the New York Times not to publicize the abduction. At least 40 news agencies were reported to know about the kidnapping, but observed the media blackout.[9]

A few outlets did briefly report the news. It was first reported by Pajhwok Afghan News in November 2008, citing two Afghan officials on the day after the abduction.[10] Al Jazeera[4] and the Italian news agency Adnkronos initially reported the kidnapping, as did the right-wing blogs Little Green Footballs, The Jawa Report and Dan Cleary, Political Insomniac.

In March 2009 Michael Yon "just did a small item because it was pretty much out there." Other bloggers and agencies were contacted by the Times and agreed to take their pieces down.[11] Yon kept information subsequent to his initial report quiet "upon request from related parties."[12] Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor & Publisher, described it as "the most amazing press blackout on a major event that I have ever seen.

Keep reading that piece and you'll find that Wikipedia itself was in on the deal:

Wikipedia also participated in the media blackout. Prior to any references to the kidnapping being added to Rohde's article in Wikipedia, a Times reporter, Michael Moss, made changes to the article to emphasize the work that Rohde had done, in such a way that Rohde would be seen by his captors as being sympathetic to Muslims.

Subsequently, reports of the kidnapping, which began on the following day, were removed by Michael Moss and some Wikipedia administrators. The Times also approached Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales for assistance in enforcing the media blackout. Wales turned to "trusted" Wikipedia administrators to repeatedly edit the article to remove all references to the kidnapping, and prevent already published information from being further disseminated

What an incredible effort.  They even made up stuff to help him. 

Contrast that diligence with the sad ending to James Foley's capture. After his beheading a story soon came out that the US Military, on orders from the Commander Guy, executed a risky raid deep into Syria to rescue Mr. Foley and fellow captives but it failed.

Many at the time remarked about how such a story could put the remaining hostages' lives in danger, not to mention it being classified information.  The administration explained their hands were tied in releasing the story because someone leaked it to the press and the press was going to publish it.  So they put it out, along with a lot more details, which drew the ire of a few Pentagon officials according to Rohde's old paper. 

Now another hostage has been beheaded.  He's not a journalist (aid worker, or perhaps even MI6), but Foley and Sotloff were certainly in the same line of work Rohde was in--and there are other journalists being held. 

So why wouldn't the mainstream press exercise the same diligence with this rescue story as they did with the Rohde story?  Why didn't they tell the Obama administration they would sit on it like they did with the Rohde story?  Maybe get the New York Times involved to put some weight behind it?   They knew breaking such a story could place the others in more danger. 

It also would be helpful to know who leaked this to the press and why, or on whose authority.  The Obama administration has gone after more leakers than any previous administration therefore someone in Holder's office has surely opened a criminal investigation, right media?  So c'mon, do some digging.  A Pulitzer may await.  Do right by your colleagues. 

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.]     

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.

 

MH370 and Conspiracies

Fareed Zakaria has a post today for CNN basically making fun of the Hoi Polloi for generating conspiracy theories, specifically about the lost Malaysian jet. He quotes a book on the subject of conspiracies by none other than Cass Sunstein of the Obama administration, explaining why so many people don't believe what they are told:

A key condition that helps fuel conspiracy theories is a lack of information. When information is scarce, conspiracies abound. And we don't actually know a lot of things about what happened to that plane.

Now, the trend is heightened where there is distrust of politics, politicians, and people in authority. One can see that in somewhat opaque political systems like Malaysia and China. But one can also see that in the United States, a country famously distrustful of its government.

Yes, he could have added examples such as "if you like your health care you can keep your health care, period", but did not.

It's clear the people of this country, like many others, understand that politicians sometimes lie--or in the least misdirect the public--for a variety of reasons.  Some are noble, some self-serving (although most liars probably think their lies are noble).  The question here is what point is Zakaria trying to make with this piece?

He ends the post by saying most events are the sum of bad luck, mistakes or chance--which is true--but he could said that in 2 paragraphs.  He mentioned something else earlier in the piece:

Group-think also takes over. When the people who are affected or interested tend to gather, talk to one and other, and communicate in isolation, their convictions tend to get hardened. So, if everyone you talk to – and listen to and watch – believes that President Obama is hiding his birth certificate, you get even more sure about this secret plot over time.

Not sure Karl Popper wrote anything on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, but maybe that's where Zakaria was trying to go in the above, dragging birthers and the Obama-haters into the mud.  He could have devoted a paragraph to 9/11 truthers, including many Democrats who when polled suggested that yes, Bush knew more than he was telling because he wanted Iraq's oil, etc.  Somehow liberal conspiracies are never treated quite the same as conservative ones.  

Not to say Zakaria isn't a knowledgeable guy--this essay on the Middle East is probably why he was once called by Bush to a meeting at the White House in late 2001 to discuss an approach to the region in the post 9/11 world:

Mr. Zakaria said he felt participating was appropriate because his views, as a columnist for Newsweek, were public, although he has never divulged his involvement to his readers.

“My column is an analytical column,” he said, adding that he gives advice to policy makers and elected officials: “If a senator calls me up and asks me what should we do in Iraq, I’m happy to talk to him.”

But he's talking about conspiracies here.  The bold above might beg the question--what did he advise president Bush to do on Iraq?  He was certainly no lover of Saddam Hussein's regime.  And he didn't mention his participation to readers.  And the meeting's conclusions were included in a white paper used within government in regards to dealing with US policy towards the region going forward (something Zakaria claims he didn't know at the time).  Such illustrates precisely why there are conspiracy theories.

As to MH370, I've not posited a theory as to what I think happened to it on this blog so far.  I simply don't know.  There's not enough evidence, and what we do have is contradictory. 

I do have a partial theory about the Malaysian government--I think they' been trying to run out of clock on the Black Box pingers by providing misleading information and a trickling of information that should have been available only days after the disappearance,  because they'd just as soon never see the plane found.  A plausible reason is a finding that the plane was either hijacked due to poor security or one of the pilots went mad, neither very palatable for the chamber of commerce types or the government lawyers, not that they were actually involved.  

But such a theory is simply pure speculation.  There are no verifiable facts they are engaged in a conspiracy.  As Zakaria says, it could be explained by sheer incompetence.  The reason I've been critical of the TWA800 investigation is because the public has been privy to many more facts and data about that tragedy, allowing individuals to reasonably draw their own conclusions.  Believing MH370 is on the ground in Pakistan or was shot down near Diego Garcia (as some theories suggest) requires believing that the UK is running interference by having the Inmarsat company generate phony satellite data that ran everyone far away down in the Indian Ocean so the powers that be could clean up the mess somewhere else.  It's interesting speculation, it's probably happened before in the history of governments, but has no basis in fact at this point.

MORE  4/6/14

The CNN story mentioned above regarding supposed new radar data showing the plane skirting the coast of Indonesia while turning south is just another example of the idiocy that leads to conspiracy theories.  This data should have been available within 24-48 hours at the most.  Here's another source:

After reviewing radar data provided by neighbouring countries, investigators have now found that the jetliner curved north of Indonesia before turning south toward the southern Indian Ocean, CNN quoted a Malaysian official as saying.

Funny, they say it flew around the outskirts of Indonesia to 'avoid radar' but they learned this by examining the radar.  So when did Malaysia have this data?  Because if they had it early then the question is raised--again--as to why they allowed countries to search areas where they knew the plane wasn't.  Again making it seem like they don't want this plane to ever be found, or at least not found until everyone more or less forgets about it.