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. 

Comparative Outrage

Here's a family member of the three Muslims killed in North Carolina talking to CNN's Jake Tapper...



So it's "open season" on Muslims in America due to American Sniper and all the murders taking place everywhere, like the beheading of the woman in Oklahoma and the police attacks in New York, and yeah, no.  By the way, Tapper went way out of his way to show a sympathy he would have given almost nobody else.

Contrast her comments with those of another Muslim woman, this one released from an Israeli prison a few years ago for assisting in the murder of Israelis in a pizzeria bombing that took the lives of 8 children...



No remorse.  She would do it again, for her Muslim faith.   She is not alone.  

Seemingly confused about all of this, Tapper's network called it a bad week for "religion".   

As to the first woman, there's just something not right with those comments.  Despite the grief.  

CNN: War on Islamic Woman, too!

One cannot read this CNN op-ed entitled "I'm a Feminist, and I Converted to Islam" without considering for a moment it might simply be satire designed to gather web hits rather than pass on a rational perspective..

I am a Muslim, but I wasn't always. I converted to Islam in November 2001, two months after 9/11. I was 21 and living in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It was a bad time to be a Muslim. But after four years of studying, poking and prodding at world religions and their adherents, I decided to take the plunge.

Well OK then. The barbaric act of 9/11 pushed her over the edge and she converted shortly thereafter to the religion of the attackers. Moving along..

I was drawn to Islam's appeal to intellect and heartened by the prophet Mohammed's quote, "The acquisition of knowledge is compulsory for every Muslim, whether male or female."

I was astounded that science and rationality were embraced by Muslim thinkers such as Al-Khawarizmi, who invented algebra; Ibn Firnas, who developed the mechanics of flight before Leonardo DaVinci; and Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, who is the father of modern surgery.

Yeah, but what have they done for us lately?  And she appears to be offhandedly dissing Christianity, the mainstream religion in play during the advances of Western Civilization, which included landing on the Moon and Mars.  Obama didn't appoint the NASA Administrator to outreach to the Muslim world because they'd already been there.

We continue, getting into the meat of the title (Islamic feminism)..

But when I asked a Muslim woman "Why do you wear that?", her answer was obvious and appealing: "To please God. To be recognized as a woman who is to be respected and not harassed. So that I can protect myself from the male gaze."

Ah, the male gaze.  Conservative, like Quakers or Amish. No wait, they are not cool because they don't believe in science and learning, Insha-allah! Muslims use air conditioners and women drive cars after all. Well, some women drive cars, if allowed by their menfolk. Onward..

She listed right after right that women in Islam held nearly 1,250 years before women's lib was ever thought of in the West. Surprisingly, Islam turned out to be the religion that appealed to my feminist ideals.

Which is completely incoherent.

The essay continues..

It might shock you to know that I had an arranged marriage.

What says feminism more than an arranged marriage?

I have been spat on, had eggs thrown at me and been cursed at from passing cars. And I have felt terror when the mosque I attended in Savannah, Georgia, was first shot at, then burned down.

Curiously, it's hard to find even one mainstream media story--even from CNN--about a mosque being burned down in Savannah.  One would think that such an act of Islamophobia, especially with the likely culprits being redneck hillbilly gun-toting racists, during the reign of George W. Bushitler, would have been the top story for months on the cover of the NY Times had it happened. Yet the only story about it in the first 5 pages on Google is from an Islamic grievance website. Finally:

In my journey to Islam, I came to learn that Muslims come in all shapes, sizes, attitudes, ethnicities, cultures and nationalities. I came to know that Islam teaches disagreement and that shouldn't lead to disrespect, as most Muslims want peace.

Most of all, I have faith that my fellow Americans can rise above fear and hatred and come to learn the same.

It's comforting to know that MOST Muslims want peace.  It's just hard to figure out which ones when the terrorists tend to live underground in western societies for years before suddenly blowing up somewhere.

But as stated, not only is she a victim of the hateful American gaze she's now a victim of the potential backlash from the un-Islamic Islamic State terrorists because their interpretation of Islam (or shall we say "disagreement") is more in line with the 19 Muslims who attacked America on 9/11 causing her to convert.

It's almost as if CNN made up this entire story.   But they didn't.  And some people will take it seriously, using it to condemn western civilization as the evil Christian bullies again. 

At the same time, it's a toss up as to whether any American feminist organizations will even weigh in on the story.   That might force them to defend bashing the GOP as engaged in a war on women when true injustices remain rampant in many majority Muslim lands.  Calling for equal rights for all Islamic women might be dangerous, after all, and certainly not productive to the cause.  Look at what happened to Bill Maher when he urged liberal consistency on the issue.

No, if this lady wanted to really make her point she could have mentioned the brave Islamic ladies actually engaged in the fight against the "un-Islamist" ISIS....

Wonder what she thinks about these liberated Islamic women?  

Press on Cathy Passing

Lots of stories this morning about the passing of Truett Cathy, the founder of Chick-fil-A. Here's a snippet from the AP's eulogy:

Those religious views helped win Cathy and his family loyal following from conservative customers, but also invited protests when Cathy’s son denounced gay marriage. Cathy’s son, Dan, who is currently chairman and president of the chain, had told the Baptist Press in 2012 that the company was “guilty as charged” for backing “the biblical definition of a family.”

The WaPo described this comment in both headline and story as 'controversial'.  CNN also used 'controversial' and featured a picture of Cathy with the evil George W. Bushitler.  True, it was controversial in the gay community, but in late 2011 the President said:

“I’m still working on it,” Obama said when asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos whether he would move from supporting civil unions for same-sex couples to supporting gay marriage.

The president's rationale for opposing gay marriage was religiously based. But apparently opposition to Biblical traditional marriage became 'controversial' in 2012 as soon as Obama changed his mind. 

So a poor kid in America gets an idea for a chicken sandwich, develops a very successful business employing thousands of people and making billions while at the same time staying true to his faith by closing the restaurant on Sundays.  A great success story in America.

But after passing it on to his son, the son replies to a question about homosexual marriage by essentially agreeing with the former positions of Obama and Hillary on the matter and the mainstream media describes this as 'controversy' and makes it a prominent feature of their eulogy on the founder.  And the politicians who never had any real views on the issue or took any principled stands are heralded as brave.  Such is the state of America in 2014.

Communist News Network strikes again

It's Sunday, so it's time for CNN to use religion to push for social justice...

Such a model allows us to feel good about our diverse congregations while nothing meaningful is being done to make significant changes in society. It ignores the fact that we have to do more than call sinners to repentance, we have to call societies, systems and structures to repentance as well.

After all, it's what Jesus would want..

Jesus discouraged the accumulation of wealth, worried about its effects on those who had it, and took special pleasure in helping the poor, dedicating his efforts to them. He must have shaken his head at the large gaps between rich and poor throughout ancient Palestine in the first century.

Forget that this clown doesn't know the difference between the system the Jews lived under 2000+ years ago and the concept of America, where an obscure black man from Hawaii (and certainly not from wealth) rose to become president.  If so he might have stumbled upon an analogy whereupon Obama's rise to power might be akin to a Jew rising to become Emperor of Rome.  But no, he chose to only focus on the current racial money divide. 

It doesn't matter, it's all about demonizing whitey to achieve a political end, no matter how it's done.  Nice job, CNN. The White House press office must be proud of your work today.

Belief in What?

CNN's "Belief Blog" is on a roll. 

A few days ago they had a post up attacking Financial Peace guy Dave Ramsey, basically criticizing him for advising that poor people develop good habits to assist their climb out of poverty.  The writer hits back by suggesting that Ramsey doesn't understand the poor, then bashes him as a hypocrite for being wealthy, using passages from the Bible about wealth as cudgels.  The writer ends the piece by saying..

God does not bless people with money; God blesses people with the good and perfect gift of God’s presence, which is available to rich and poor alike.

Which is true.  Which overturns her entire point about wealth, because if wealth alone were a disqualifier for entrance into Heaven it would be empty.   Even the poor have to account for their financial choices.  We will all be judged on how we act, not how much we made.  Ramsey has helped thousands of people get out of debt.  His radio words are hard to listen to in a sea of political bickering, but very much needed.   

Now today the Belief Blog tells us that C.S. Lewis wasn't exactly a saint.  Keep in mind both Ramsey and Lewis are heroes of the evangelical sect.  Writer John Blake summarizes him as a perverted, drunken hypocrite who didn't take care of his house and eventually stopped his apologetics because he could no longer oratorically defend Christianity.   Of course, Lewis himself has admitted to various personal iniquities, including an early life as an atheist, but very little context was provided.

Looking over Mr. Blake's writings on Belief Blog they do not appear to be over the top.  A much needed look into the on-line world of arguing over religion was worthy.  But digging a little deeper into his resume a few red flags appear.

For instance, he recently penned his own apologia over Obama's lie about health care, telling CNN readers that hey-- ALL presidents lie, including that guy Bush Junior who lied about WMDs, even though no lie was ever proved. The White House couldn't have written a more vile piece in defense.  Blake explains the difference between 'unforgivable' and 'noble' lies.  He doesn't pin either on Obama, giving that to history wink wink, O was just trying to get people covered so just sayin, but after discussing this he goes back to bash Bush again, then tells us we indeed need a president who can lie. 

Here's another gem.  Right before the 2012 election Blake wrote a well-crafted screed linking Obama with Nineteenth Century racism.  Clever writers are subtle in their point; Blake was trying to bring an image of a beleaguered mixed race president suffering the daily slings and arrows of racism just like his predecessors during reconstruction, despite Obama himself being fairly well-insulated from such cruelties for most of his life and the sheer unlikeliness of a black man even being on the presidential ballot during the Jim Crow era.  

So in the final analysis the CNN Belief Blog could be seen as a cloaked political blog designed to knock down mainly right wing Christian apologetics via a post-modern search for religious truth, while engaging in their own form of apologetics in defending noted earthly figures.  If someone were to judge them.

Thank God

From Yayhoo:

A Maaloula resident said the rebels, many of them sporting beards and shouting Allahu Akbar, or God is great, attacked Christian homes and churches shortly after moving into the village overnight.

"They shot and killed people. I heard gunshots and then I saw three bodies lying in the middle of a street in the old quarters of the village," said the resident, reached by telephone from neighboring Jordan.

These moderates were probably just trying to shout a friendly greeting to the Christians inside the village as they came into town and the Christians overreacted.  "Thank God, thank God"! Right Mr. McCain?   

CNN is reporting on this as well, asking the question, "What the capture will mean for the Christian residents waits to be seen". For a possible answer let's return to the Yahoo/AP article:

Another resident, a Christian man, said he saw militants forcing some Christian residents to convert to Islam. "I saw the militants grabbing five villagers Wednesday and threatening them (saying): 'Either you convert to Islam, or you will be beheaded,'" he said.

Since such a thing is not conjecture--it's been done in the past--the Obama administration really needs to explain why beheading and forced conversion is somehow not as bad as a chemical weapons death.

UPDATE  9/8/13

Yahoo has already scrubbed "Allahu Akbar" out of the story.  The original was the blockquote above, also seen on Gateway Pundit's story this morning.   Only 30 minutes later somebody went in and stripped those words out. Here's what it looks like now:

A Maaloula resident said the rebels, many of them sporting beards and shouting God is great, attacked Christian homes and churches shortly after moving into the village overnight.

They indicate no updates to the story. One could ask who, and why, but what difference, at this point, does it make?

Spying on Di

Did the British SAS (Special Forces) actually take out Princess Diana?  That claim is making news in the UK right now..

The decision to examine the new claims suggests that officers believe they must be looked at by detectives to assess whether they have any weight. However they come from the estranged parents-in-law of “Soldier N”, an SAS soldier who was a key witness in the successful prosecution of Sgt Nightingale.

He was himself convicted of illegal weapons possession. His estranged wife’s parents wrote to the SAS’s commanding officer claiming the soldier had told his wife that the unit had “arranged” the Princess’s death and that this had been “covered up”.

For those who don't know, Danny Nightingale was the SAS soldier convicted of possessing a trophy pistol and ammo after returning from Iraq.  The whole thing sounds a little shaky, but surely the Brit press will cover it more objectively than will ours. I've always wondered whether the Princess's dabbling with Muslims, ie, Dodi Fayed or her Pakistani lover, might have been enough reason to keep tabs on her friends and associates.  Driver Henri Paul might have been an informant to French intelligence but he was also a drunk driver, so if the intel services arranged that accident they're as good as the characters in a Bond film.

The funny thing is, the NSA evidently captured some data on the Princess back before 9/11:

Diana, the official insisted, was never a "target" of the NSA's massive, worldwide electronic eavesdropping infrastructure. The NSA system sucks up millions of electronic signals from around the world every hour, but only "targeted" communications are actually analyzed and deciphered after a vast array of supercomputers sort them out on the basis of programmed search terms, such as "Saddam Hussein."

Target being the key word.  The NSA only recently denied 'targeting' the princess, saying some info was inadvertently picked up in the scoop.  But surely some of those people that were actually being targeted were close to her and were giving the Old Lady heartburn.

By the way, those with good memories will remember the "Echelon" story in the late 90s, which this WaPo report covers:

The giant spy agency, Maryland's largest employer, has been the subject of intense controversy in Britain and across Europe since a report released in January by the European Parliament concluded that "within Europe, all e-mail, telephone and fax communications are routinely intercepted by the United States National Security Agency."

The report focused on a system called Echelon through which the NSA and its spy partners in Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia share communications intercepted from around the world and systematically divide the huge task of analyzing the "take."

What's old is new again!  In essence 9/11 simply allowed the focus to shift to US-based targets. Or maybe they've been doing it all along based on capturing international trunk data through US servers. We await James Clapper's investigation of himself.  Hilariously, the Echelon story didn't tarnish Clinton that much in the 90s just as the recent revelations haven't seriously damaged Obama, but Bush's version of the program was outrageous. 

Happy Easter

Happy Easter to all.   Hope you can spend it with those closest to you.  

Lot's of buzz about Google showing Cesar Chavez on their Easter doodle--Chavez was a devout Catholic and it's doubtful he would have preferred such a thing in his heyday--but his buzz phrase 'Si, se, puede' was Obama's victory slogan and Google is a major Obama supporter, so they made their choice of saviors. 

Speaking of the Catholic church, I'm not of that faith but I'm very much liking their new Pope, Francis..

This kind of subservience and humbling is what Christianity is all about, and what most of us fall short of in our daily lives.  Pomp and ceremony might make followers feel warm and fuzzy in its tradition--and tradition is fine--but it does nothing to move the faith forward or make people understand it.  Martin Luther left the church of Rome for this very reason.  At the same time such things can be dangerous in this world, so hoping for the best.   But then again, we all have a destination.   

Various and Monday

A few things....

Hillary, and Obama and Stevie, sitting in a tree.  Coronations aren't a news function.  CBS should be ashamed of itself.  When liberal pundits use analogies like this it's time to reshuffle the news department.   Well, if they care about real news reporting.  

As it is, Madam Hillary is now the best SoS since Jefferson or something.  Yep, she rescued the country's rep, evidently cleaning up after the two black people who preceded her.


----

The Boy Scouts to consider allowing gay scoutmasters and kids?   Well first, if a boy scout is engaging in sex he's already breaking the Scout Oath.  Second, gay men should not be in charge of Scout Troops.  Yes, that sounds intolerant; there are some decent people who happen to be gay and only a few are pedophiles (probably in line with the overall population).  And yes, God is in charge of judging, me as well.  But I'm just not going to be tolerant on every issue.  The Boy Scouts should simply disband if it comes to violating their own principles.    

-----

Comprehensive immigration reform?   Still politics.  Still an attempt to isolate the bitter clingers, clinging to their guns, religion and xenophobia, etc.   My opinion hasn't changed one atom since the 2006 attempt at doing this.  A smart society does not reward illegal behavior.  If there are fines and green cards, it may be do-able, assuming the borders can be controlled.

----

From the NRO:  Office Established by Obama with the Intent to Close Gitmo, closes.   Hey, that could have been a question from Stevie Kroft as well. 


  

American Jihadist

Face it, that's basically what Adam Lanza was--a jihadist.   AQ (what's left of them, and while they are running) must have been jealous in watching reports of this because it's right out of their playbook.  He had the element of surprise just like they had on 9/11.

Meanwhile many liberals/politicians/luminaries are demanding a national conversation on guns.  Townhall writer Kurt Schlichter eloquently explains what that's likely to mean:

Wait, we can’t have that conversation. In fact, we’re not supposed to have what people might commonly describe as a “conversation” at all. We’re supposed to shut-up and listen as liberals, barely masking their unseemly delight at the opportunity, try to pin the murder rampage of one degenerate creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong. The conversation is then supposed to end with us waiving our fundamental right to self-defense.

Because that is what the goal is – a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. There’s always another “common sense” gun law which fails because it is targeted at law-abiding citizens and not criminals, thereby inviting another round of onerous new restrictions until finally no citizen is keeping or bearing anything more than a dull butter knife.

Not a total ban on firearms of course--the rich elites, including Hollywood hypocrites and politicians would get to keep theirs 'for protection'. The real goal is to disarm the bitter clingers.  It's almost a certainty that we'll be hearing about the Tea Party and other GOP entities in regards to blame for Newtown if only the tiniest of links can be established, probably during the 'discussion' phase in the weeks ahead.  If anyone is expecting much out of this national discussion aside from liberals trying to heap guilt on conservatives in order to foist more 'change' they are fooling themselves.

What about the jiadist parallel (unlikely to be part of the national discussion).  Let's assume Lanza was a jihadist.  Let's say he was heard screaming Allahu Akbar while gunning down those children.  Would it change anything?  Would gun control be in the forefront of the national conversation right now or would the urgent question be about how the FBI, NSA, somebody should have had access to his computer to intercept his planning?   Would the president have been shedding a tear on TV or would he have come on in stern tone urging everyone not to jump to conclusions?   Even if the same guns were used in the attack? 

So far religion has been relegated to the unfortunate utterings of Mike Huckabee, ie, this was caused by a lack of God in the schools.  Actually, one could make the argument it was about a lack of God in Mr. Lanza's life.  Religious beliefs--or a lack thereof--most certainly played a role.  Nobody who walks into a school and murders first graders then kills himself has any worry about the afterlife.  Lanza, even if he was off mentally, could not have believed in a literal hell.  He likely had a nihilistic vision of simply pulling the trigger and going to sleep for eternity, ie, relief from his hellish existence on Earth.

On the contrary, Islamic suicide attackers believe in an after-life complete with a 72 virgin sex orgy.  Both views allow nuts to kill themselves and almost look forward to it.  As we've seen over the years it's very hard to stop someone unafraid to die.  What good is a law when someone won't be around for prosecution?

MORE  12/18/12

While this story has featured more misinformation from the authorities--passed on by the media--than any in recent memory (and the cops had the balls to threaten people with prosecution for passing on false info)  there are a few loose ends that need tying up.  One, what happened to the other guy caught in the nearby woods wearing camo?  Was that real or fantasy?   Two, what about the supposed altercation the shooter had with someone in the school a day before the attack?  

Now we find that Lanza's hard drive has been destroyed.  That's a little strange since just a few days ago the authorities were saying they had real hopes of finding a motive based on what they were discovering in the home.   But it's hard to tell the information from the misinformation.  

It's a Secret

From the WaPo via Maguire--

After a contentious closed-door vote, the Senate intelligence committee approved a long-awaited report Thursday concluding that harsh interrogation measures used by the CIA did not produce significant intelligence breakthroughs, officials said. The 6,000-page document, which was not released to the public, was adopted by Democrats over the objections of most of the committee’s Republicans.

The outcome reflects the level of partisan friction that continues to surround the CIA’s use of waterboarding and other severe interrogation techniques four years after they were banned. The report is the most detailed independent examination to date of the agency’s efforts to “break” dozens of detainees through physical and psychological duress, a period of CIA history that has become a source of renewed controversy because of torture scenes in a forthcoming Hollywood film, “Zero Dark Thirty.”

As Maquire says, such a secret report will convince no one, with the possible exception of those who watch and report for MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and the major newspapers. But the real kicker is whether those who work in the White House, or used to until recently, will be happy.

White House?  Why, Obama deplores torture, dumb wars and cowboys.  Nevertheless he employed guys like the current Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, John Brennan, and current Interim Director of CIA Michael Morell--Bush's personal CIA briefer!  Until July 2011 Michael Leiter led the National Counterterrorism Center.  Of course there was Petraeus, who might still be at CIA had he been able to keep his pants on.   All served Bush in the torture era.  

The most ironic of the bunch is Brennan, who once had to withdraw his name as a candidate for DCIA in 2008 due to left wing pressure over the torture thing.   His name is now coming up again to replace Petraeus, which will be a fun little test of the liberal memory banks.

Meanwhile Susan Rice also announced today she was pulling her name from contention to be the next Secretary of State due to the uproar her confirmation hearings might cause due to unfair criticism, racism, sexism, misogyny and various other future sins yet to be committed by several old white guys. Oddly enough Rice's SoS dreams were scuttled not by them, but by the fact she carried administration water to cover up the latest CIA war on terror related scandal-intrigue in Benghazi, which according to Petraeus' flame was about prisoners of some kind, look over there, a squirrel.  

As Rice bails out and takes away the specter of being asked tough questions like why she lied and what she was protecting, evidently it's become better to let that agitated dog go back and lie down.  It was also reported today that the State Department investigation into the matter might not be made public and that Hillary, already scheduled to testify in front of Congress, may not.  Sounds like at least somebody is making deals in DC.   Anyway, back to football and the Cornball Brothers (apparently a new movie coming soon starring Dave Chappelle) as RG3 has some advice for all of us. 

Good Start, NY Times...

..now finish the job.  You've now told us more about the amateurish Coptic Christian who produced "Innocence of Muslims" and distributed it on You Tube, which later became fodder for worldwide protests and violence along with a rationale for the Benghazi attack as relayed by our Ambassador to the UN. 

Now, what about the other part--the part where it got translated it into Arabic and broadcast on YT, becoming a convenient tool to whip up the very Islamic frenzy the film criticized on our most sensitive day, 9/11?  

C'mon, you guys can do it!  Tell us why and how the film inflamed as it did, the players who used it, and whether those players were connected to AQ and/or trying to get the Blind Sheikh released.

Or would that be too close to a double-link to Islamic terrorism, both from Benghazi and Cairo, therefore inconvenient until Susan Rice is safely confirmed?        

Tick Tock

As the Trump blimp deflates all over the internet like a child's popped balloon attention turns to the emails on Benghazi.  The right believes they show evidence of a cover up; the left believes the entire thing is fake outrage over politics.  I take some issue with both.

For instance, the movie can't be completely dismissed.  Why?  Because we don't know enough to completely dismiss it.  We don't know if Ansar al-Sharia or other groups used the video to whip up outrage amongst their flock of useful idiots to carry out an attack, opportunistically spurred several  hours after the Cairo protest.

We don't know if they were planning an attack already but sped it up due to the opening provided by the movie outrage.  We don't even know if the video was legit or a prop secretly made by Islamists to justify all the violence.  The filmmaker is still locked up in solitary here in America. 

We don't know if Egyptian Islamists coordinated with their counterparts in Libya, or those throughout the Arab-Muslim world, before the fact.  We don't know exactly what the facility in Benghazi was being user for or why Ambassador Stevens was there with light security on 9/11 meeting the Turk ambassador. 

We DO know a few things, though.

We know the initial protest in Cairo was designed to free the Blind Sheikh.   The Obama people haven't mentioned him once, nor have they been asked about him after 9/11. 

We know Obama knew early that Benghazi was an organized attack not involving a protest mob.  We know that despite just suffering a terror act and loss of an ambassador he jetted off to Vegas for a fundraiser.  We know he knows what Benghazi was really being used for, which might explain some reticence (only because the answer might be politically sensitive).  We know that in the first interview he gave of the event, on September 12th to 60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft, he answered thusly (emphasis added):

In the same story that breaks the news and gives readers the e-mails, CBS News prints an unaired answer that Obama gave Steve Kroft on September 12. It was his first interview after the attacks. "You're right that this is not a situation that was -- exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."

That episode aired on Sunday, September 17.  Ambassador Rice had been on five TV shows earlier that day, including on CBS, to pump the position that it was a spontaneous reaction to the movie clip, suggesting that just another mob protest spiraled out of control.  We know Obama knew it wasn't a protest mob.

We know nobody in the major media has used this event to question our overall policy in Libya or the role going forward. 

All of which leaves more unknowns.  Why was Rice instructed to say what she said?   Who told her to misappropriate the truth (keep in mind they knew by that time it wasn't a protest gone amok)?  Why did 60 Minutes cut that segment with Obama saying, "and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start"?  It certainly would have looked strange in comparison to Rice's earlier comments.   Who told them to cut it and why?

In the end the facts are few because reporters have not aggressively pursued the facts.  Dave Weigel blames reporters--heck yeah--the question is why those reporters haven't been doing their jobs.  Answers are easy to imagine, even without proof.

IRAQ?   10/25/12

CNN reported last night that fighters from AQ in Iraq were involved in the Libyan attack, mixed with locals.  There's a history of Libyans working with Iraqis to fight US troops in Iraq; evidently some were returning the favor:

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.

This suggests further that the attack was not spontaneous.  If intelligence is leaking this to the press it also suggests a level of foreknowledge.  So, will we now have to "send in the military" to Iraq bring to justice these terrorists or will Maliki just round up some usual suspects?    

Interestingly, CNN this morning is headlining a story casting doubts on the State Dept's own emails during the event that indicated Ansar al-Sharia was involved based on Facebook and Twitter posts, which were picked up yesterday, inflaming the story even more. In this article is a link to the story above about Iraq, clicking on it simply takes the reader to the email debunking story. Just a glitch, probably.

The bottom line doesn't change, though. Had the president simply stayed with his early comment to 60 Minutes and not tried to pretend the event was just another mob protest flared by the movie trailer, ie, having Ambassador Rice repeat that honest assessment on the Sunday shows, none of this would be at issue. We would simply be faced with the stark reality that AQ may indeed have suffered some setbacks but they remain a lethal enemy not to be used as political fodder.

Fair is Fair

Hmm.  So Iran's government now has a new fatwa on Salman Rushdie while saying they will 'track down' the filmmaker that allowed otherwise peaceful Muslims a week of mass riots.  By the way, why don't they pronounce it "Sah man" Rushdie?  Sorry, southern digression there.

CNN has been broadswording this filmmaker for several days, accompanying their stories about him with apologias about Islamophobia and how American Muslims live in fear, etc. (all to prop up Obama's fading foreign policy chops of course); now there are death threats on the filmmaker.  So if something happens to him of the slightest nature can we shut down CNN for inciting violence?   In the least the Obama folks should check with the FCC to see if they can find something erroneous in their permit or something.  Sounds fair.    

Who, What, How

Today the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, made a Sunday show media blitz to deliver the official unofficial political non-political narrative--the Libya attack was spontaneous, no matter what Libya is saying. 

Trouble is, the Libyans have been saying a lot.  Politico reported today that their president, whom they identified as Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, said the attack was definitely planned months ago and included 'foreigners'.   But the Daily Beast has a story that quotes a spokesman for the Prime Minister:

Akari says that the Libyan authorities have found no evidence of direct participation in the consulate attack. “So far we really believe that this was a violent demonstration mainly against the movie that swung out of control. The protesters saw on television what was happening in Egypt and decided to have their own protest. We have no evidence at all that this was al Qaeda.”

In the Beast article they call El-Magariaf the president of the Ruling National Assembly, so presumably he's more akin to Boehner.  

So which version is true?   Well, both have incentive to pull a Baghdad Bob.  The Prime Minister doesn't want to tick off Obama, who made it possible for him to drive the fancy car and posses the title; the president of the assembly is more connected to the grassroots so he might not want to leave the impression local militias would kill a friendly ambassador and burn down his quarters while yelling Allahu Akbar due to some goofy movie trailer.  It's those nasty foreigners.

Still, even the PM wasn't willing to take all the blame, choosing to ask why the US ambassador was in Benghazi on 9/11 in the first place, which is actually a decent question.  It's not as if the US had no clue that Ayman al-Zawahiri had just spoken about the death of AQ's number two, a Libyan, a day before on 9/10, right?  Surely someone at Foggy Bottom monitors the web. 
 
So it's all pretty foggy right now but surely as the specter of American aid comes more clearly into focus the narratives will themselves come into better alignment. 


Meanwhile on a side note, ABC reported early in this event that one of the murdered ex-SEALS (working as a formerly dreaded security contractor) was investigating the proliferation of Gaddafi's former supply of MANPADs anti-aircraft missiles inside the country and had found several.  That story indicated the concern of many US officials that some of those weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists.  In today's Beast story they mention something perhaps seminal towards the end:

Meanwhile, Salafists in the eastern Libyan city warned on Friday that they would retaliate against foreigners if they come under attack from either the government or the U.S. On Friday, officials closed the airspace over Benghazi to prevent any civilian airliners from being downed when militants warned that they would fire if they spotted any American surveillance aircraft. Ali al-Shaikhi, spokesman for the Army chief of staff, confirmed that the decision to halt civilian aircraft flying into Benghazi was taken as a precaution.

Now technically they didn't say what the militants would use to down civilian aircraft---doesn't mean they have MANPADs--but it doesn't mean they don't.   If they do it would mean that Salafists, on the government payroll as militia leaders, and who might have been involved in the consulate attack or have ties to AQ, have realized those officials' greatest fear.

We're Losing the War...

...if this kind of comment is now considered "hate and violence":

"While the overwhelming majority of Muslims are as peace loving as everyone else, there are radical Islamists right here in the United States trying to kill Americans and destroy this country," he told a town hall meeting in Elk Grove Village, Ill.

That comes from Rep Joe Walsh of Illinois, who claims he was repeating information heard in the committee hearings on domestic radicalization. Add it to the classification of the Family Research Council as a "hate group" then ask yourself what in the world is going on in America?

The linked article was trying to suggest that mosques and Muslims around the country are cowering in fear, awaiting the inevitable predicted attacks that haven't come since 9/11.  And just who would be attacking them?  Would it be guys who volunteer at the local GLBT support group or teabaggers stimulated by Walsh? Feel free to supply the answer--and bonus points to those saying the LGBT guys should be targeting both Muslims and Christians should they care about ideological consistency.  But of course they value their key body parts far too much.

Back to Zero

This is the best article I've seen lately on the political games being played by Obama over gay marriage. An excerpt:

Newsweek editor Tina Brown—she of the “First Gay President” cover—described Obama’s reaction thusly, “He stumbled into it because of Joe Biden. The hero of the hour is Joe Biden, right?" Obama had a different take.

Asked about his inspiration, he cited not Joe Biden, but the Living Word. “When we think about our faith,” said Obama speaking for himself and Michelle, “the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.”

For the record, Jesus summed up the Golden Rule thusly, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” Given this understanding, Jesus implored his disciples to treat the marginalized, like, say, Mary Magdalene, with respect. He did not demand that they legalize prostitution. He certainly did not call them “bigots” if they hesitated.

He also mentions them using the "old school socialist exploitation of Christianity", which is really the girding underbelly of Obama's true ideology.  Oh, and not to keep harping on Biden, but he came out of the closet in late 2010, right after the mid-term shellacking.  So Obama didn't 'stumble on' anything due to Joe. 

Hijab Update

According to MSNBC there is a 'new twist' in the murder case of Shaima Alawadi, the hijab-wearing Iraqi immigrant found in her El Cajon, CA home beside a note calling her a 'terrorist'.

A new twist. Really? This was MSNBC's old twist:

"We're not going to cry, if that's what you wanted. We're not going to take off our scarf, if that's what you wanted," Alawadi's eldest daughter, Fatima, said at the vigil, addressing her mother's killer.

For many in El Cajon, the case has drawn parallels to that of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teenager shot in Florida last month by a Neighborhood Watch volunteer in a killing that has also drawn outrage because of its racial undertones.

The new twist is that there was friction between the daughter and her boyfriend, who didn't like the fact their parents were going to marry her off to a cousin per tradition. There was also friction between the deceased and her husband, who were evidently heading for divorce. So another epic media fail could be in the works. Go figure.

Hoodies and Hijabs

Do they have anything in common? No, other than being pieces of clothing covering one's head. But some are trying to tie the Trayvon Martin story with another one out west--the death of an Iraqi woman severely bludgeoned with a tire iron several days ago in her home in El Cajon, California. Alongside her body was found a note calling her a terrorist and telling her (them) to return to the Middle East. Many are screaming that it's another 'hate crime'.

Indeed, a CNN report seems to find a common thread:

But social media users quickly compared Alawadi's death to that of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, calling both hate crimes, and drawing a parallel between a hijab and a hoodie.

Martin was killed last month as he walked back to his father's fiancee's house in Sanford, Florida, after a trip to the convenience store. Police say he was shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who said he was acting in self-defense and has not been charged.

The teen was unarmed, carrying a bag of Skittles candy and an iced tea, and was wearing a hoodie. On Sunday morning, the authors of the parenting blog, Momstrology, tweeted: "A teen murdered for wearing hooded sweater. An Iraqi woman beaten to death for wearing a head scarf. Our hearts ache for you."

Terrible. But isn't it early to be allowing such faint comparisons? Police in the bludgeoning death have yet to locate a suspect or call it a hate crime but they have said it appears to be an isolated event. Maybe that's because there are a lot of possibilities in murder cases, such jealous lovers, irate husbands, spats between friends, wild rages with angry neighbors over petty nonsense, etc. Mrs al Awadi was found in her home with no signs of forced entry or theft.

Not to say it wasn't a xenophobic redneck gone wild--they certainly exist--but without hard evidence it's a little speculative to start putting the blame on guys wearing NASCAR hats or even "white Hispanics" (El Cajon has a large Hispanic population). The dynamics of Muslim marriage are not well understood in western society, which is another reason investigations need to be done. And despite 9/11 the number of violent crimes against Muslims has been unexpectedly low.

But we live in a world that demands instant justice. Look at the comments on this report; most have jumped to the conclusions Obama once warned us about when it came to the major Hasan workplace violence jihad at Fort Hood. Read an Agatha Christie novel or watch an old Perry Mason rerun--things aren't always as they seem (click on both links and take a look at the two pictures). The anthrax letters sent in 2001 included notes blaming Muslims. Later a US microbiologist was fingered as the likely culprit. There was a confusing letter left in the Jon Benet Ramsey murder. Red herrings exist.

None of which is a comfort to the afflicted. Human nature being what it is, the group 'under attack' often feels the only recourse is to emotionally call out vigilante mobs, which only begets more violence. Such times demand our leaders to call for calm and patience, not emotional self-identification. They should know their words have tremendous power. If officials stonewall investigations or refuse to prosecute obvious hate crimes after investigations complete there are many other avenues of recourse short of blood in the streets.

Our elite media should understand. Like political leaders they have an ability to shape events but an even higher responsibility to ferret out the truth and keep others in check. After all, they've all been to J-school just like Sarah Palin. Mindlessly aligning disparate events or creating false narratives to help further political causes or sell papers is itself a travesty of justice and completely un-American.