Aviation Update

The reporting on the crash of the Dassault Falcon 50 in Moscow carrying French oil giant Total's CEO has become typically weird.  Not to say there is a giant conspiracy, but not to say one should be ruled out.

As usual there are conflicting reports.  Some examples are shown below, with items of note in bold.  First, here's something from an AP wire report:

The crash occurred at 11.57 p.m. Monday local time when the French-made Dassault Falcon 50 burst into flames after hitting the snowplow during takeoff from Vnukovo airport, which is used by Russian government officials, including President Vladimir Putin, and visiting foreign leaders.

So AP says it was during "takeoff". Makes sense when considering the destruction of the aircraft, which apparently inverted before its tragic end. But here's the press spokeslady from the Vnukovo airport (the government facility Putin uses to fly in and out):

During the taxiing before take-off, at around 0:10 am Moscow time on Tuesday, the light aircraft hit a snow-clearing machine, the head of Vnukovo’s press service, Elena Krylova, told the media. “A Falcon airplane that was en route from Moscow to Paris collided with a snowplow while the jet was preparing to take off. The plane caught fire after the collision and all the people onboard – including a passenger and three crew members - died,” Krylova said.

The aircraft did not leave the ground after hitting the vehicle, she added, refuting earlier reports that the plane did eventually take off but then the pilot made a decision to turn back and land. The investigators have already found the aircraft’s black boxes while the airport staff were writing explanatory reports, she added.

So we're being asked to believe the Falcon jet slammed the plow as it was lining up for takeoff?  With debris strewn hundreds of meters and the aircraft being inverted?  But despite the widespread debris the plow driver survived and amazingly, the airport was cleared to reopen only 2 hours later:

Vnukovo Airport temporarily suspended all flights following the incident, but by 2 am all operations were restored.

Perhaps at this juncture it would help to show a picture of the airport..

Two main runways, lots of taxiways, more than enough potential confusion with low visibility.  And they could have resumed operations with only one runway, it appears.  So what about the weather? According to this report the temperature at crash time was 34F with humidity at 100 percent with a light southeast wind--all conducive to fog formation, and indeed the weather observation mentioned visibility at only 1/4 mile in light drizzle. So, why was a snow plow on the runway?  Were they releasing urea or some other substance to melt possible slush and ice?  Maybe--Moscow was expecting snow.  And it's entirely conceivable the allegedly drunken plow driver got lost in the mist and took the wrong taxiway or crossed an active runway and nobody in the tower could see it.  But we're back to the plow driver surviving, which sounds like a miracle. 

By the way, here's another story that described the crash this way:

"During run-up at 11:57 pm (1957 GMT), there was a collision with the airport's snowplough...

Misinformation after crashes is as predictable as sunrise, especially with the clown car media involved, but this report was from the airport PR person, not the media.  And she claims the plane wasn't taking off, because if it was taking off it wouldn't be 'running up'. 

But here's a presumed eyewitness report of airport operations this morning--only hours after the crash:

I was in Vnukovo today. I couldn't find any rests of the aircraft. Last night, at 12.15, I was returning home, driving through eastern Moscow. Heavy rains after a snowy sunday. It wasn't snowing at all. It was just raining. As I got to my house, 8nm from Vnukovo, around 12.35, there was almost no rain left. Flights today were mostly in order, no big delays. Heavy winds in the West-East direction. Lately, runway 24 is mostly used for take offs while runway 01 for landings. Anyone knows where was the crash? I saw nothing, although it was a 4 minutes drop off visit to Vnukovo, but i deeply checked in the around and couldn't find a single piece of aircraft, smoke, nothing. I was there at 11am.

Hard to believe there would be no sign of some debris there the morning after.  And it would be nice to see what the plow looks like now.

In other words, we getting some conflicting information. Sorting out the factual information from the misinformation, or possible disinformation, is the key. There is a difference. Proving 'disinformation' is always the hardest.

One way to guess is an analysis of where stories about the event are taking viewers/readers.  Right now almost all the stories are blaming a drunken cartoonish Russian plow driver.  They are also keying on the notion that de Margerie was against isolating Russia with punishing sanctions due to Ukraine, ie, why would a friend of Pooty Poot get rubbed out in Moscow?  But there's also this:

Total is a major shareholder in Novatek, Russia's largest independent natural gas producer. The two companies were planning to develop a massive liquified natural gas reserve in Siberia.

But the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner over eastern Ukraine in July prompted Total to suspend buying additional shares in Novatek.

So as oil prices crater (less cash for Russia and the Middle East) perhaps Vlad couldn't twist his arm into more positive action.  Things are getting strange out there.

Speaking of oil, a few stories are also mentioning de Margerie and Total Oil's roles in the Iraq "Oil for Food" program where he was suspected of helping the Saddam regime sell oil on the underground markets to get around UN/US sanctions, charges of which the company was only recently cleared.  But take a look at this from the OFF memory hole and it gets weirder (added emphasis):

Thirty percent of the oil vouchers were issued to beneficiaries in Russia, including individual officials in the president’s office, the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Russian Communist Party, members of the Russian parliament, and the oil firms Lukoil, Gazprom, Zarubezhneft, Sibneft, Rosneft, and Tatneft.

Fifteen percent of the beneficiaries were French, including a former interior minister, the Iraqi-French Friendship Society, and the oil company Total.

Yes, both the Russians and French were helping Saddam back in the day so combined with the abovementioned bits of history it would seem to make the West, and not Russia, prime suspects for sabotage.  Then again, if something nefarious is up in Russia it doesn't necessarily always have to originate in Putin's office.  Their investigations committee is already laying blame!  But sometimes accidents just happen--even in Russia. 

MORE  10/23/14

More details are coming from Russia regarding the fallout from the crash.  Seems the plow driver has been arrested and detained.  His lawyer claims he wasn't drunk at the time and that tests to confirm his blood-alcohol will take 5-7 days rather than within 1 day as is usual, however this report claims it was released today and measured 0.06. That's below US standards for drunk driving, but airport operations require zero point zero.  Russian authorities have also picked up a couple of air traffic controllers, a maintenance supervisor, and a 'flights director', while the top two airport officials have resigned.    

Still no pictures of the plow.  The driver claims he was part of a convoy of plows heading across the airport grounds when something happened to his truck and he stopped to get out and look.  He claims he couldn't hear anything due to the roar of his plow engine and didn't realize he was on the active runway.  He claims he tried to contact his foreman on radio (which would probably not be on the same frequency as ATC ground, but one that ATC should monitor). Then the crash.

He seems to have been driving when the crash occurred, as there are indications he got back in the truck to start again but couldn't see the other trucks.  Based on the photo of the aircraft wreckage the plane had obviously taken off and perhaps gotten slightly airborne, since it somehow ended up inverted, therefore the plow driver was on the active runway.  Since he was completely unharmed it's likely the impact was a glancing blow, perhaps to a wing or the tail, since pictures show the Falcon jet's nose landing gear extended as normal and largely undamaged.  That scenario would explain the final resting position better than the airport PR director's initial remarks.

Still, we have a situation where a 10 year veteran airport maintenance operator was bumbling around on an active runway and nobody noticed.  That's where the notion of alcohol comes in--it could be used to explain the driver's actions quite well.  Of course it's Russia, don't people get up in the morning blowing a point six?  

Even with some booze it's hard to imagine that a plow driver could be that stupid and wouldn't have been monitoring ground frequencies to know whether there was any air traffic around.  Then again, one can imagine a haphazard operation where a fleet of plows were cleared to cross, the last driver was a bit loopy and stopped after hearing a sound--not knowing where he was because he was only following the truck in front of him because it was foggy, then getting back in and driving fast trying to catch back up but not wanting to talk on the radio then getting clipped by the departing aircraft before catching up to his comrades. He could have also been outside the truck when ATC gave the Falcon jet clearance, which was possibly given by an ATC trainee.  Most accidents are caused by a compounding of separate errors.

So, while conspiracies can never be totally dismissed in a country run by a former KGB officer the theory of negligence must first be eliminated, and right now it's looking pretty strong.

That was then...

John Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in 2012..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now this:

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

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

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

KERRY TODAY...

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

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

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

Does the pottery barn analogy apply here?

Aviation Update

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

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

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

Where is Steven Segal when ya need him? 

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

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

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

----

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

BOTH WAYS   7/23/14

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

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

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

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

GOOD GRIEF 7/24/14

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

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

Aviation Update

The storyline of MH17 is becoming more clear as time passes--Russian-backed separatists fired a missile, probably aiming at what they thought was a Ukrainian cargo jet, and mistakenly shot down a 777.   No apologies have been issued and both sides are denying any role while blaming the other.

The NTSB and FBI have been dispatched to Ukraine but it's hard to imagine they will be able to get much accomplished in a war zone with the crash scene already contaminated.  Besides, the United States--through our Commander-in-Chief and Ambassador the the UN, has already announced it was a missile strike that brought down the aircraft likely fired by Russian-back Ukrainian separatists.  The FDR and CVR may provide some additional clues, mainly the CVR highlighting any crew discussions (if any) on routing or danger before the event, but otherwise it was a catastrophic event so the data will just stop.

The untold story now is not what, but why.  Getting to the why could be more troublesome and potentially cost more lives than the crash depending on where the West wants to draw their red lines on demanding an international investigation or imposing harsh sanctions.     

By the way, many of the conspiracy theories are insane.  They are comical beside any TWA 800 theories.  There are a few weird things though, such as the New York Times corrected claim that the Russian segment of the same Jet Route MH17 was flying was "closed" by Russia hours BEFORE the flight arrived in Ukraine. Actually, the airspace was closed below Flight Level 320, which would have been below the level the jet was traveling.  If indeed Vladimir Putey Poot's presidential aircraft had just passed this area on it's way from Brazil back to Moscow it sounds like the closing wasn't consequential or related.

The one thing that lingers in the air is Putin's rhetoric in reaction to sanctions on Wednesday...

Russia's foreign ministry dismissed the sanctions "bullying" and signaled that it was ready to push back. "We consider the new round of American sanctions against Russia as a primitive attempt to take vengeance for the fact that events in Ukraine are not playing out to the tune of the script of Washington," the ministry said in a statement.

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in televised remarks said the sanctions are throwing Russia's relations with the West "back to the 1980s" and added that Russia "will have to pay more attention to military and security spending."

...sanctions that affect Russian arms companies (including missiles), followed by the shoot-down of a commercial aircraft on Thursday.  And Putin was apparently the one who broke the news to Obama during their phone call, as he was complaining about the sanctions.   So much for the reset.  So much for the flexibility.  So much for the 80s calling Mitt Romney and wanting its foreign policy back.      

-------

There is another strange aviation story being overlooked right now, that of United Flight 201.  This was yet another Boeing 777 that made an emergency landing on the island of Midway.   Here's renowned ABC aviation expert (and former airline captain) John Nance on the event..



Full interview here. 


MORE  7/19/14

Talk about a conspiracy theory..  consider this story from the Daily Beast today (emphasis added):

Until now, Moscow has retaliated to U.S. financial pressure with sanctions of their own against U.S. officials, lawmakers, and even donors to President Obama who are linked to the gay advocacy community. Putin hasn’t always made the retaliatory sanctions public, but his government sought to respond proportionally and kept other issues out of the dispute.

So Vlad is making a point to target gays in the US supporting Obama, while MH17 was reportedly carrying over 100 people to an HIV/AIDs conference? Good Lord, is it possible that Putin, after his friends and weapons-making oligarch thugs were targeted by Obama, shot down the Malaysian Airlines jet to make a quiet statement?  And if so, was there any significance in choosing a Malaysian Airlines flight?  Could he possibly know something about MH370 that we're keeping under our hats?  Crazy insane, but Putin is crazy enough to do it.

Condi Rice has done it now

The former Secretary of State has weighed into the murky waters of O-criticism:

“Right now, there’s a vacuum,” she told a crowd of more than two thousand attending the National Republican Congressional Committee’s annual dinner last night in Washington, D.C. “There’s a vacuum because we’ve decided to lower our voice. We’ve decided to step back. We’ve decided that if we step back and lower our voice, others will lead, other things will fill that vacuum.”

Citing Bashar al Assad’s slaughter in Syria, Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, al Qaeda’s triumphant return to Fallujah, Iraq, and China’s nationalist fervor, she concluded: “When America steps back and there is a vacuum, trouble will fill that vacuum.”

We just saw Rummy infer that the president was less than a "trained ape" so it'll be fun to watch the reaction to this one.  The former Stanford Provost and Russian expert is already a lying Aunt Jemima House Negro killer who likes the NFL, so now she's probably a racist, too.

But it's nice to hear some confirmation that when the 'world breathed a sigh of relief' after Bush left office it was mainly the tinpots and bad boys who were doing the deep exhaling, even if the initial prediction was just a bit off.  

Obama and Constitutions

According to our constitutional scholar president, the action taken by the Crimea section of Ukraine to secede into the Russian Republic was "unconstitutional":

Speaking from the White House on Thursday, President Obama called “unconstitutional” a planned referendum in the Crimea over whether people there want to remain part of Ukraine, and reiterated a series of steps Russian President Vladimir Putin could take to “de-escalate” the conflict in the region

One day earlier the same president unilaterally changed the Affordable Care Act with the stroke of his own pen (presumably he didn't call anyone). The same president appointed people to his administration when the Senate was still in session.  Just sayin--when you don't live by your words your words don't mean much.

Red Lines in the Snow

Yes, Kiev has burned, some Russians are streaming into the Crimea and Obama responded forcefully by giving a 3 minute speech then running off to herald "Happy Hour" at a DNC fundraiser last night.  What else can he do?  They crossed his red line but there's nothing on the other side, with the possible exception of sanctions and Obama not attending the G8.

Yes, this makes America look weak, especially as the administration talks of 'ending' wars that still rage while downsizing our military.  But what do Russian aficionados think?  How far will Putey-Poot go?

Looking around on the net there are all kinds of opinion blogs.  Here's one that seems to have an interesting theory:

In short, nobody wants to be the first to start shooting as the lesson from Georgia 2008 that is applicable to Crimea is if you shoot first, you lose.

In other words, there are downsides to being seen around the world as the aggressor.  He goes on to talk about Russia's signature on the Budapest Memorandum (to protect Ukraine's sovereignty), making the point that nobody will trust Putin anymore on future agreements if he sends more forces no mater what his excuse, but he ends with this:

The stakes are quite high for all concerned one way or another. How to row back from the current situation with all managing to save face? Or do one or more actors simply not care about that anymore?

Well, to be honest Obama will have 80 percent of the media at his back to spin any outcome as a victory, so he's probably got some tee times this weekend.  He'll continue full speed ahead on his domestic 'year of action' as he continues taking action to roll our foreign policy back onshore. 

Putin likely doesn't want full-scale war, he just wants to show up Obama enough on the world stage to gain more gravitas and prestige.  Obviously he's also protecting the Russian naval base in Sevastopol just as he did by finagling the Syria WMD deal to protect his interests at the Russian naval base at Tartus. Is there any coincidence that the last two altercations between the US and Russia have occurred on places where they have naval bases and oil and gas interests?  Probably not.

So here's a dumb prediction--cooler heads will prevail soon and the media will be back to talking about gay issues and fluff stories within a week.  That will continue until late March when the Obamacare final deadline arrives, at which point they'll probably pick up the World Net Daily Sheriff Arpaio "universe-shattering" announcement about Obama as a diversion (and to make fun of the Tea Party). Of course somewhere along the way Obama will have to make his March Madness picks on ESPN.   So it's all good.

Meanwhile, some chickens are coming home to roost...

Ouch RT @BuzzFeedAndrew: This old OFA poster mocking Romney is great for a number of reasons. pic.twitter.com/MuPP3noPaq

— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) March 1, 2014

So, who is it?

Odd, but with a purpose:

The case of an American citizen and suspected member of al-Qaida who is allegedly planning attacks on U.S. targets overseas underscores the complexities of President Barack Obama's new stricter targeting guidelines for the use of deadly drones.

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen. The Pentagon drones that could are barred from the country where he's hiding, and the Justice Department has not yet finished building a case against him.

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.

The question is, whose purpose?  The WaPo's version of the story weighs heavily on Congressman Rogers' comments regarding a sense that Obama counter-terrorism policy is handcuffing efforts to get the bad guys. This suggests the leak didn't originate in the White House.  Indeed AP (ABC) quotes "four US officials", which suggests they weren't "administration officials".  Jay Carney would not confirm when asked for comment today, but he didn't deny it either.  

Media outlets were using the story to highlight the new, improved "targeted killing policy", ie, Obama Kill List.   Imagine Bush being associated with anything remotely like it, and the reaction.  It's funny that Obama told Hollande at Monticello today, "I can do anything I want".  Yes, a joke, but not far from the truth as he again changed Obamacare today and if he were to contradict his own targeted killing policy by eliminating a US citizen suspected terrorist, who's going to impeach him?  John Boehner? 

So on to the speculation.  Some say a trial balloon designed to gage public reaction to targeted killing of a US citizen.  Hey, they poll everything nowadays. 

Others speculate it was designed to smoke said terrorist out of his hidey hole by indicating that one of his coming days may end poorly should the President decide to go all Obamacare on his targeted killing rules. 

Some speculate it's about letting the country in question know we know, while others look at this as career outsiders prodding the President to act before it's too late.  

Whatever the case a lot of politics could be played, such as mentioning that top secret info was given to the press amidst an administration that has prosecuted more leakers than all the other administrations combined.   Will Holder go after someone here or will his reluctance telegraph the leak's origin?  Will a Fox News reporter be wiretapped for good measure?   Surely the leader of the country in question is already under surveillance.

But seriously, how best to decipher this riddle.  How about taking the above paragraphs one at a time, keeping in mind they were presumably written by an AP reporter and not the White House--bold added for effect:

The case of an American citizen and suspected member of al-Qaida who is allegedly planning attacks on U.S. targets overseas underscores the complexities of President Barack Obama's new stricter targeting guidelines for the use of deadly drones.

The target is undoubtedly a US citizen because there was no qualifier language included.  He is a suspected member of AQ, allegedly planning attacks on OVERSEAS targets according to the writer, but maybe not the government.  Anyway, the 'homeland' is not assumed to be under threat.  Onward...

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen. The Pentagon drones that could are barred from the country where he's hiding, and the Justice Department has not yet finished building a case against him.

So there are CIA drones operating over the country in question.  Story doesn't say whether the country in question knows this or not; allows it; or simply can't stop them.  Wherever it is they do not allow US military operations, at least drones.  Finally, if the Justice people haven't written up a full case then it's unlikely he's one of the luminaries on the Rewards for Justice most-wanted terrorist site, since most of them have been around awhile.  But based on the leak of the story they believe he's about to do or direct something. 

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

That's interesting, since it suggests the country might not be hostile to the US, just that it cannot or does not allow US military action. Sometimes that is done to assuage the local population. Since Obama changed the world and everyone loves us now, it's hard to figure out who it could be.  But the language also suggests the country could be hostile and just will not go after this AQ belligerent against our wishes.  Which brings in Putin! 

Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.

So he's a facilitator, not an operative or combatant.  He's been around long enough to be responsible for the deaths of Americans OVERSEAS, but as earlier comments indicated the Justice people don't have a case on him yet so he must be a relatively newer discovery.   Since they mentioned IEDs that suggests a war zone like Iraq or Syria but IEDs can be used anywhere. 

So that's it.  They didn't specify if the guy was "Core" or with one of the affiliates, which doesn't help much, but we do have a few American citizens on the Rewards for Justice wanted list.  These two come to mind first:
1. Adam Gadahn, aka Azzam the American, aka, Adam the Assclown
2. Abdul Rahman Yasin.  Whether he's considered AQ or even still operating is unclear.  He was one of the bomb mixers of the first WTC attack who boogied to Baghdad after the attack and hasn't been seen since the invasion.  Saddam seemed to be hiding him so bringing him up might be inconvenient.   


There's also:
3. Jehad Mustafa, a Wisconsin native now working for al-Shabaab 

Some may think about Adnan Shukrijumah, aka, Jafar the Pilot (a very very HVT) due to his extensive time living in the United States.  But he's not a US citizen.

Stumped at the moment, but it's Monday.   

Do have some closing observations/questions.  Is it a coincidence that the WaPo released a video of the extraordinary rendition capture of Anas al-Libi today?  Not sure if that was authorized by the admin either.  If not, what's the point?   Finally, is it a clue that all passengers booked on Caribbean Airlines flights from Guyana to the United States from today through Tuesday were told to make alternative plans due to threats received?  "Jafar the Pilot" is a citizen of Guyana, by the way.  

The Return of Hersh?

Seymour Hersh:

The administration buried intelligence on the fundamentalist group/rebel group al-Nusra.

It was seen, Hersh says, as an alarming threat by May, with the U.S. being aware of al-Nusra member able to make and use sarin, and yet the group – associated with the rebel opposition in Syria – was never considered a suspect in the sarin attacks.  Hersh refers to a top-secret June cable sent to the deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency that said al-Nusra could acquire and use sarin.

But the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Defense Intelligence Agency could not find the document in question, even when given its specific codes: "Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, told a press conference: ‘It’s very important to note that only the [Assad] regime possesses sarin, and we have no evidence that the opposition possesses sarin.’

For those who don't know Hersh, he's the reporter who exposed the Mei-lei massacre in Vietnam and a Pulitzer Prize winner.  He was very active during the Bush years, hounding the president with numerous exposes about the Iraq war based on insider information from military sources that angered many conservatives.   After pretty much disappearing for Obama's first term he recently popped up and accused the administration of lying about everything regarding the bin Laden raid.   A story which made nary a ripple.

So this of course should be a huge allegation, but not unsurprisingly it's getting very little play in the mainstream media or even on Fox so far (Hersh claims the media is coddling the president in a dangerous fashion).

The interesting thing about it is how it might play with allegations that were swirling around the time of Obama's threat to bomb Assad.  Consider this story put out by Iranian FARS propaganda service, on the question of al-Nusra's use of chem-weapons and where they might have obtained them:

"The chemical weapons used in the attack on Khan al-Assal area had been prepared by former Iraqi Military Industries Brigadier General Adnan al-Dulaimi and supplied to Ba'ath-affiliated terrorists of the Nusra Front in Aleppo through Turkey's cooperation and via the Turkish town of Antakya in Hatay Province," an informed source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of his life, told FNA on April 6.

The source who has been an aide to Izzat Ibrahim - the most senior member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle who is still on the run and heads the outlawed Ba'ath party after the apprehension and execution of Iraq's former Dictator Saddam Hussein - defected from the group a few months ago, but holds substantiating documents on Izzat Ibrahim's plans.

Gen. Adnan al-Dulaimi was a key man in Saddam's chemical weapons production projects. After the fall of the dictator and when the Ba'ath party was divided into the two branches of Yunes al-Ahmad and Izzat Ibrahim, he joined the latter group and was deployed in Northwestern Iraq, which is a bastion of Ba'ath terrorists, to produce chemical substances.

"The 80mm mortar shells which landed in Khan al-Assal and killed dozens of people were armed with the latest product of Dulaimi's hidden laboratories sent to the Nusra members for testing," the source added. "Also at his order, several former Iraqi military industries engineers trained the Syrian terrorists on how to use these chemical weapons," the source said, adding that all plans in this connection were prepared by Adnan al-Dulaimi and staged after the approval of Izzat Ibrahim.

It's not beyond the pale to think the Iranians planted a story on Izzat al-Duri, who was a top level lieutenant to Saddam Hussein who for for some reason remains free despite a 25 million dollar bounty.  Some have speculated that he might possess some kind of get-out-of-jail free card to use if caught, such as access to WMD weapons or embarrassing information.  So this would fit with the former.

Others consider him a bumbler whose reputation has been blown well beyond his capabilities and that various factions simply use him as a bogeyman for political reasons.   Whatever the case it is strange that he's never been caught.  It's also strange that few in America know who he is.  Imagine a former bigwig in the Nazi party still running around loose years after Hitler's regime was crushed.  People would know. 

Yet nobody knows.  Applying some speculative logic let's say the al-Nusra gang does possess Sarin and did use it to kill innocent Syrians.  In doing so, they would have crossed the 'red line' set by Obama in 2012, forcing some kind of US action.  The action wasn't forced immediately though, since there were reports of at least two previous attacks prior to the major one near Damascus that killed over 1000, where nothing was done whatsoever.  Up until that point America was only providing 'non-lethal' aid to the Syrian rebels (assuming there was no gun-running operation between Benghazi and Turkey as some have suggested).

The attack that killed over 1000 had to force some action--but where was the action to be directed?  If the government were to come out and say al-Nusra launched the attacks that would force them to explain why the United States was aligning itself with WMD-using AQ-connected terrorists.  Some could even claim the United States was tangentially responsible by helping the rebels.

Such would also require a presidential explanation of why America doesn't hesitate to use drones all around the globe to combat AQ factions except in Iraq and Syria.  Finally, admitting al-Duri was involved would possibly tie Saddam's former Ba'athist regime to the very WMDs Obama claims they didn't have, which produced the worst foreign policy mistake ever.   Some political inconveniences, for sure. 

Again, who knows.  Hersh's sources might be feeding him some BS because they don't like Obama or because they are still mad that forces were aligned for an attack then cut off.   But it's no easier to believe the administration after some of the whoppers told about Benghazi, the IRS scandal and Obamacare.  Whether Hersh's story fades away quickly during the holiday season or shines a new light on the recent report that chemicals were used just last week in Syria--on the same day the Nobel-winning OPCW declared that Assad's chemical arsenal was completely destroyed, remains to be seen. 

But one thing is reasonably predictable. If this story does get legs Hersh will be heading under the bus with it, background or not.  There is no loyalty with these Chicago guys.   If history repeats itself being audited would be the least of his troubles.  How about rounded up and pressured to divulge his anonymous leakers so they can be prosecuted as have many others during the last five years.  Is it possible the Justice Department is already in possession of his emails, web cam views, cell phone calls or text regarding his sources?  Sounds crazy, but it's already happened with James Rosen and the AP.   Yeah, Hersh is old school and might have taken care to do his work face-to-face, but technology is everywhere. 

What Just Happened?

Well, we seem to have a deal:

The United States and Russia have reached an agreement that calls for Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons to be removed or destroyed by the middle of 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Saturday.

Under a “framework” agreement, international inspectors must be on the ground in Syria by November, Mr. Kerry said, speaking at a news conference with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey V. Lavrov.

Alrighty then.  For some reason Putin punted last Monday under the incredible pressure placed on him by the Obama administration and victory is at hand.  Obama the master tactician--pressuring war made peace!  The new doctrine. 

This despite the fact that last Monday the threat of an attack was perhaps at its lowest probability. Putin/Assad were facing the specter of a miniscule bombing run designed to take out a few bridges and rocket launchers at a time when even that plan had little if any support in either Congress or the international community.  Obama was like a marionette dangling in the corner he'd back himself into with no way out aside from becoming a hated war criminal or calling everything off and losing his entire legacy.  His scribes were rewriting his Tuesday war speech every hour.    

Then Putin saved his bacon.  So what the fork happened?

The agreement will of course be spun by our fair and balanced media as the greatest comeback since the days of Clinton, which will elevate the president just when he needs it--facing a fight against the real enemies and terrorists and neanderthals of the GOP and Tea Party over debt and government funding. Biden will probably call this outcome the gutsiest move since Obama's Bin Laden raid back in 2004.

Of course the true test for our country and the world will be 1) can Assad truly be disarmed, and 2) will Assad be punished for already using WMDs?  It's going to be a herculean task to disarm a tyrant during a civil war, probably impossible without a legitimate cease-fire and somebody's boots on the ground, both of which are problematic.  But this doesn't have to start happening until November according to the 'framework' agreement so Obama can have a free shot at the Republicans before things get tricky again towards Thanksgiving and Christmas (unless somebody shoots off WMDs again in the interim).

That gives the regime a few months to continue dispersing their arsenal and killing the rebels, which include head-chopping cannibals associated with AQ, or even perhaps moving some out of the country to friendly neighbors.  But the story can now disappear off the front pages for awhile. 

As to a true outcome, IF, and it's a big if, the chemicals can be located, counted, moved and destroyed then part of the victory will become real, but only part. The UN cannot leave a precedent where a dictator can gas his own people and then when pressured give up the weapons under agreement, only to escape completely without consequences.  So Assad will either have to be hauled off to the ICC at some point or sent to Allah to hobnob with Saddam. 

If that last step doesn't occur this will be a failure, whether the media or historians admit it or not. But surely the present situation is better than the bombing that was being considered, making it a preferred outcome despite the president literally stumbling into it.  For some reason we can thank president (and Times editorialist) Vladimir Putey Putin for enabling that stumble....for reasons still unknown.

MORE  9/14/13

This article, purportedly of several ISIS fighters (AQ-related) in Syria, explains in very vivid detail why the west/United States is losing the Global War on Terror.   These young men are committed soldiers for a cause, whereas the population of the United States (and the west at large) is not committed to the fight at all, mainly because our leadership is afraid to make us committed lest it appear to be a war on Islam.

We are going to lose if we don't see the stakes involved.

A NEW DAY  9/14/13

...and the strategy and rhetoric seems to change with every sunrise.  Here's Jay Carney on Wednesday, explaining how the threat of force alone had forced Putin to the negotiating table...

There is no question that the credible threat of U.S. military force brought us this diplomatic opening.

Just three days later here is the Decider Guy in his weekly address:

This week, when I addressed the nation on Syria, I said that – in part because of the credible threat of U.S. military force – there is the possibility of a diplomatic solution.

What will tomorrow bring? 

What if..

Can someone explain why Putin and Assad decided to 'blink' on the weapons standoff?   The Obama people are trying to describe it as Putey Poot getting scared into taking the international road due to the threat of a miniscule bombing raid designed not to change the regime or eliminate the chemical weapons.  Which sounds a little incredulous.

The most credible threat of force existed during the days leading up to Friday August 31st when every pundit thought the bombs would fly over the weekend.  Then Friday night Obama took a walk around the White House grounds with a trusted advisor only to announce Saturday that he had decided to take his burden to Congress.

So why didn't they blink that Friday when everyone thought the attack was eminent?   It seems more like our president blinked that Friday night. 

Following Obama's about face (and afternoon round of golf) everyone watched as public opinion tanked while Congressional straw polls showed very little support.  No major world governments were pledging military support for a coalition.  Yet with a possible Congressional vote coming up that looked hopeless somehow this pressure convinced Assad/Putin there would be an attack and they caved?   Either Putin's dumber than he looks and let Assad blink, or something's up.  

Maybe the eye doctor blinked and Putin couldn't stop him.  That doesn't sound completely impossible, except for the fact he gave an interview to Charlie Rose on the same Monday that Kerry blubbered out his rhetorical goof (that Putin and Assad immediately pounced on).  He didn't say anything to CBS that would indicate he was about to blink, and nothing more was threatened by the administration that day.

So what if there's something up?   Well, it's sure fun to wildly speculate.   For instance, what if Snowden has delivered some very private information to the Kremlin?  Something about the president perhaps. After all, the NSA had been snooping for years before Obama came to power.  Or what if Putin knows something about the origins of Syria's WMDs?   Obama keeps bringing up Iraq in every speech about Syria, thinking that somehow he can always shine in comparison to Bush/Iraq no matter what.   The bluffing is over now, so they either know something and have threatened to spring it or they are out of options and stalling for time.  Taking an op-ed in the New York Times was a very interesting move.  

What We Need to See Tonight

So the Commander Guy will likely want his use of force resolution passed by the GOP, er, House, regardless of any international doves flying around the Middle East at the moment.

OK fine, it's not a bad idea.  Some of us have been saying they need to take the international route for weeks now.  Of course the administration is acting as if they've had this in the hip pocket since September 1st or sooner.  Thing is, if President Peace Prize had this worked out with Putey Poot weeks ago why did he go to Congress at all?   What would be the need to go to Congress when they could just push it in the UN and get the resolution?  Obama says he doesn't feel he even needs to get their approval.

Which leaves the question of whether the move to Congress was entirely political.  Think of the possible perks for sabre-rattling then trying to pull the Tea Party and RINOs into a vote on war designed to weaken both before 1) the debt showdown, 2) coming Obamacare rollout, and 3) immigration reform.   Throw in old mentions of Bush and Iraq and it's tempting to believe in their conspiracy.

Not only that, but such wild theatrical hysterics would take the focus off the myriad of scandals and the 9/11 anniversary (just ask someone from the administration a question about Benghazi and marvel as their mouth clenches up and the subdued vitriol pours out).  The ultimate distraction.  

Of course, to believe this administration tale takes some faith.  For instance, Kerry would have to be in on it, requiring a willing suspension of disbelief.  And we would also have to wonder what kind of parting gifts Putin might get for his role in such a screenplay.  Obama did promise to be more flexible.  

Oh yeah, the post title: what we need to see tonight.  Well, the president says he needs the support of the GOP in this mess to get authorization for bombing.  At the same time his administration has in the past called conservatives 'enemies' and 'terrorists'.  He's called a previous war to hold a chemical weapons user accountable 'dumb'. He's demonized the conservatives on the Supreme Court and harped on big business while jamming his unilateral finger in the Constitution's eye in a host of ways.

So maybe he can start tonight with an apology for being such a divisive ahole thus far.  Maybe then some progress can be made.  And make no mistake, not everybody wants that moon faced Putin to punk the USA or win on the international stage, regardless of who's in the Oval Office.  But Obama could at least make it little easier to root for him. He could start the healing tonight.

POST ANALYSIS  9/10/13

He had a chance to mend some fences but it was just too tempting to toss in a Bush bash by claiming we didn't go through congressional channels in taking down Saddam.

But I’m also the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possessed the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of Congress, and I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.

This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.

That's just complete bullshit.  He also airbrushed Iraq out of the brief history of chemical weapons users.  Why?  Is everything politics and finger pointing?

Overall the speech provided nothing new except that he wants the Congress to hold off on a vote while they consider John Kerry's rhetorical mistake.   Looks like Peggy Noonan was right.  

Red Lines and Puppies

Regarding the possible massive chemical weapons attack in Syria, forget the fact our president pretended that such an attack would cause really really bad consequences.  The obvious question is why would Assad launch such an attack right after a UN inspection team had just arrived in his country to investigate previous attacks?

  That question was asked today by Jeffrey Goldberg:

The second question is, why would the Assad regime launch its biggest chemical attack on rebels and civilians precisely at the moment when a UN inspection team was parked in Damascus? The answer to that question is easy: Because Assad believes that no one -- not the UN, not President Obama, not other Western powers, not the Arab League -- will do a damn thing to stop him. There is a good chance he is correct.

Eh OK, but is even Assad that bold?   Maybe if he knew Iran and Russia squarely had his back?  Well, if so, that represents an even larger finger-sign shaped missile from Putin exploding on the White House lawn than was Snowden.  Picture a bully pushing the skinny kid from Chicago over each red line he keeps drawing. 

But let's assume even Assad and Putin aren't that bold.  That would mean the 'rebels' pulled off an attack, as Russia is now inferring, or it was faked. This actually makes more sense based on the arriving UN team. If the rebels pulled off an attack that's just as bad as Assad doing it, because it means we're giving weapons to people who are just as bad as the guy they are fighting.

It also means people aligned loosely with AQ now have WMDs.  Where would they get them?  It's tempting to suggest "from Saddam", since our current Director of National Intelligence once said, but a lot of factors really don't add up on it (even General Sada's far-fetched airborne transfer).  The Assads have maintained chem weapons for decades (they didn't get them from Rummy) so they didn't need any from Iraq anyway.  Besides, all indications are that the US/western intel keeps their eyes trained on Syria's stocks and they haven't indicated movement, which was another red line.  That would mean they came from somewhere else. Outside of Syria.  Where?  Here?

"The chemical weapons used in the attack on Khan al-Assal area had been prepared by former Iraqi Military Industries Brigadier General Adnan al-Dulaimi and supplied to Ba'ath-affiliated terrorists of the Nusra Front in Aleppo through Turkey's cooperation and via the Turkish town of Antakya in Hatay Province," an informed source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of his life, told FNA on April 6.

The source who has been an aide to Izzat Ibrahim - the most senior member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle who is still on the run and heads the outlawed Ba'ath party after the apprehension and execution of Iraq's former Dictator Saddam Hussein - defected from the group a few months ago, but holds substantiating documents on Izzat Ibrahim's plans.

Far-fetched and rather delicious propaganda for Russia, but considering that the Maliki government is largely siding with Iran and Syria it's certainly plausible for the forgotten Ba'ath clown to be helping the other side.

Now then, if the rebels only faked the attack to gain international sympathy and trigger military involvement it certainly would be better--as in nobody actually dying, but it would mean they are pretty desperate.  None are real good options.  But did you hear the White House got another puppy?

CNN INVESTIGATES  8/23/13

Chris Cuomo did a sit-down with the prez this morning and asked some semi-tough questions about Syria..

CUOMO: The red line comment that you made was about a year ago this week.

OBAMA: Right.

CUOMO: We know since then there have been things that should qualify for crossing that red line.

OBAMA: Well, Chris, I've got to -- I've got to say this. The -- when we take action -- let's just take the example of Syria. There are rules of international law.

CUOMO: Uh-huh.

OBAMA: And, you know, if the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, do we have the coalition to make it work, and, you know, those are considerations that we have to take into account.

CUOMO: You don't believe we've seen enough?

OBAMA: Now, this -- well, this latest event is something that we've got to take a look at. But keep in mind, also, Chris -- because I know the American people keep this in mind -- we've still got a war going on in Afghanistan.

CUOMO: True. True.

OBAMA: You know, we're still spending tens of billions of dollars in Afghanistan. I will be ending that war by the end of 2014, but every time I go to Walter Reed and visit wounded troops, and every time I sign a letter for a casualty of that war, I'm reminded that there are costs and we have to take those into account as we try to work within an international framework to do everything we can to see Assad ousted -- somebody who's lost credibility -- and to try to restore a sense of a democratic process and stability inside of Egypt.

A lot between the lines there. Syria: red line crossed but regardless of my cowboy talk the American people don't want an escalation so we are studying things, but we remain concerned. Hmm, what happened to the aid they've already provided when the red line was last crossed (that triggered the serious consequences)? It does not appear to be working so far, and this president does not appear to be serious about it.

Afghanistan: one does not simply 'end a war'. A war is either won or lost, or fought to a draw such as in Korea. So why won't journalists press the president on that characterization? It's clear that Americans don't want their loved ones being the last soldier to die for a lost cause, as Kerry once said, but isn't a war 'dumb' if not fought to be won?  Or is the main front in the GWoT, which the president once called Afghanistan, no longer a threat? If it's no longer worth winning, eg, no need for any further sacrifices from American military personnel fighting the enemy who attacked us on 9/11, then let's get the hell out yesterday.  Using it as a useful excuse not to provide the serious consequences over a red line drawn somewhere else is no reason to stay.

Circle Game

Try to process these stories..

John Kerry, on a TV station in Pakistan:

In an interview with Pakistani state TV, Mr Kerry said both he and the president saw a time when the drone strikes would end - the first time such a senior figure has discussed how the attacks might finish. "I think the programme will end as we have eliminated most of the threat and continue to eliminate it," he said. Asked when that might be, Mr Kerry added: "The president has a very real timeline and we hope it's going to be very, very soon."

When asked about the 'end' to the drone program 'very soon', according to a presidential timeline not published, State Department spokeslady Marie Harf said:

QUESTION: But he says “end,” not reduced, not use it less. He says “end.”

MS. HARF: Well, clearly the goal of counterterrorism operations, broadly speaking, is to get to a place where we don’t have to use them because the threat goes away. Now, we’re all realistic about the fact that there is a threat that remains and that we have to keep up our vigilance – excuse me – the fight in this and other places around the world. So this was in no way indicating a change in policy. It’s really been reinforcing things I think we’ve said for months on this.

QUESTION: Well, he says he hopes it’ll be very, very soon. Is there any reason to think that it will be very, very soon? Are you talking about ending it very, very soon?

MS. HARF: I have no exact timeline to provide. Again, the Secretary was making the point that we have made, as we’ve talked about, significant progress against core al-Qaida in this region, and that we will continue to do so – that they are a shadow of what they once were, and I think he was reinforcing that point. But again, no timeline to provide right now.

In the same interview the spokeslady confirmed the rumor that the State Department will close US diplomatic facilities across the Middle East this Sunday the 4th out of 'an abundance of caution' due to a 'security threat', which NBC later confirmed was related to AQ:

The officials said the threat appeared to have originated somewhere in the Middle East and to be related to al-Qaeda. It was aimed at overseas diplomatic posts, not at facilities inside the U.S., they said.

So in summary, 'core AQ' is decimated and a 'shadow' of their former self, yet the US government is exercising an abundance of caution in closing a bunch of embassies in Muslim countries due to what sounds like a serious AQ threat.  At the same time they are outraged over Snowden being granted asylum by Putey Poot for spilling secrets about our absolutely critical super-secret counterterrorism eavesdropping program, which turned out to be a bunch of programs that can grab everything, including this post, to be used for who-knows-what someday--but designed in principle to detect AQ threats before they occur, of which the revelation has made us less safe.

So is AQ still a serious threat or not?   Or was Kerry just blowing happy smoke up the Pakistani's asses the same way Susan Rice was on the five Sunday shows regards another well-known diplomatic post?

SOMETHING... 8/1/13

..may be going on. Embassies closing amidst reports that our drone activity in Yemen has increased of late. Now this:

Al Qaida’s network in Yemen is planning to conduct bombing attacks on American civilian aircraft. Officials said the intelligence community has traced a plot by Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula to blow up a commercial airliner or cargo plane.

This is the outfit that developed the underwear bomb. They claimed to have already taken out a cargo jet, saying they blew up UPS flight 6 leaving from Dubai back in 2010 but that was never confirmed. Whatever the case, there would be no need for an "X-keyscore" program if we were, as Kerry just told the Pakistanis, very close to ending the drone program because the GWoT is almost over.

SOME MAY QUESTION THE TIMING..   8/3/13

Here's Eric Schmitt of the New York Times announcing that the unusual closure of embassies was triggered essentially by NSA eavesdropping on the terrorists..

The United States intercepted electronic communications this week among senior operatives of Al Qaeda, in which the terrorists discussed attacks against American interests in the Middle East and North Africa, American officials said Friday.

And wow, only days after Snowden was granted asylum. Maybe he didn't damage the network as much as they figured. Anyway, I thought this was a curious remark from the Times:

But intercepting electronic communications is one the National Security Agency’s main jobs, as the documents leaked by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, have only underscored. At the request of intelligence officials, The New York Times withheld some details about the intercepted communications.

So someone was leaking to the Times about the threat but the administration isn't commenting?  Or have they been given a channel to the NSA?  Remember, this is the same Times that leaked on Stuxnet and the Bush programs.  Have Holder's gestapo-like tactics regards media leaks gotten them back in line?  

Obviously this is convenient timing for the administration so the question is, is there really a threat? Well, there's ALWAYS a threat.  And perhaps this one is solid--every time that idiot Zawahiri opens his mouth in a statement something usually happens somewhere.  It did in Benghazi.   So this may be the Obama politicos piggybacking on a real threat to make their case about spying while at the same time trying to diminish Snowden with the LIVs, who knows. 

Or, it may be that every time something dramatic pops up about Benghazi, other stuff happens. The last time the mainstream press got worked up about it the IRS released the IRS scandal--themselves. Just sayin.

They Forgot About Bout

In almost every briefing about Edward Snowden's stay in the transit lounge of the Moscow airport Obama administration spokespeople have mentioned all the Russian suspects/criminals returned by the US over the last decade (emphasis added):

Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, pointedly noted that the United States had returned “numerous high level criminals back to Russia at the request of the Russian government,” then added: “We expect the Russian government to look at all options available to expel Mr. Snowden back to the U.S. to face justice for the crimes with which he is charged.”

But one of the most famous Russian high level criminals of the last few decades was NOT returned or even mentioned by the administration.  Mara Liasson of PBS asked Baghdad Carney about him today:

Q Can you describe the difference of what the administration sees between Snowden and Viktor Bout, who was not returned, although the Russian's wanted him returned?

BAGHDAD CARNEY: I can just tell you that our view on Mr. Snowden is clear. And we are working with the Russians to hopefully return him to the United States, where he will be afforded all of the rights and privileges of defendants in this country. And we believe that there's ample legal justification for his return. 

Most people have probably never heard of Viktor Bout, one of the most famous arms traders in history, now doing time at Marion prison.  I had forgotten him myself despite doing a post on him awhile ago. CBS News remembered him and asked openly a few weeks ago whether Russia might be angling to swap Snowden for Bout, which could explain the diplomatic holdup (which is surprising with all the flexibility the president has now). Not surprisingly Carney quickly moved on to the next questioner.

Who Tipped Europe?

The Spanish say:

.. it and other European countries were told that the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden was on board the Bolivian presidential plane that was diverted to Austria this week, causing a diplomatic row. The foreign minister, José Manuel García-Margallo, said on Spanish National Television on Friday that "they told us that the information was clear, that he was inside".

The minister did not say who supplied the information and declined to say whether he had been in contact with the United States. But he said European countries' reactions were based on this information.

Who else would have informed them besides the US? So if we did, who tipped us? Snowden is reportedly still in Moscow so it makes sense to think their FSB security service would be the logical choice. If not then there's probably a search going on at the airport as to who the CIA asset might be.

Meanwhile this remains a complete non-story in the mainstream press.  Paula Deen continues to get more coverage.   Again, just apply the Bushitler theorem--how big a story would it be had Bush stopped and searched the Bolivian president's presidential jet looking for someone who leaked his TSP program, etc. 

Moscow Blues and the Bungle in the Jungle

So Ed Snowden is still holed up in the transit lounge at Moscow's Schekrehtljryhrylkov Airport, awaiting his fate.  A week ago the story was about Ecuador giving him some kind of asylum document so he could travel along without proper documentation (which would be OK if he were coming across the Mexican border).

But suddenly a worm turned.  The press reported that Biden made a call to the Ecuadoran presidente about the insignificant 29 year old hacker; a productive and frank conversation that dealt with a range of issues, no doubt.

So what did they talk about?   Sure seems the Ecuadoran position has become a tad softer today.
Was it this?

The oil giant Chevron, the third-biggest U.S. company by revenue, has sued Patton Boggs, the nation’s premier legal and lobbying firm, for concealing and promoting fraudulent information in a case that was born in the jungles of the Amazon. Chevron has also convinced a New York federal judge to allow it — despite protests from Patton Boggs about attorney-client privilege — to take the extraordinary step of examining thousands of pages of the law firm’s internal communications regarding its client, indigenous people from Ecuador’s Amazon who are suing Chevron.

Eighteen BILLION dollars.  That's how much the Amazonian people from Ecuador are suing Chevron over an oily mess left by Texaco when they abandoned the country 20 years ago; sued by way of the Ecuadoran government through Patton-Boggs, a high profile law firm in DC with some connections to folks in the administration.  Yeah, sounds like a big f'ing deal and something they might want to talk about. 

SNOWDEN SPEAKS  7/1/13

The cinema of the bizarre continues.  Snowden, realizing he's been effectively checked by a wheeling, dealing Joe Biden (Obama is in Africa and is not following the proceedings very closely, ahem) is trying to regain popular support by issuing a statement, wherein he claims his "right to asylum" has been violated and that Obama is afraid of the people.  His initial revelation was important and necessary but the more he speaks, and the more he threatens to release state secrets, the more he sounds like Assange.

Meanwhile Vlad Putey Poot is milking this for all it's worth, saying sweet nothings like if Snowden stops leaking about EU partners he'll grant asylum.  He's really having fun twisting that knife, it's clear.  He has nothing to lose. 

Speaking of Russia, started reading the new book "Disinformation" by former Romanian Intelligence Chief (under the Soviets) Ion Pacepa, the highest ranking Soviet bloc defector the United States (in 1978) and the former right hand man of the notorious Nicolae Ceausescu.  It's fascinating so far.  He explains what he feels is the difference between misinformation and disinformation, the latter of which the Soviets also called "Glasnost" in an attempt to fool gullible western liberals and reporters (sorry for the redundancy).   It appears some forms of Glasnost are still alive and well in Russia. 

Snow on the Run

On to Russia.   Will Putey Poot grab him and hold him for a reset card on Syria or let him pass through on his way to Venezuela via communist Cuba?   We will see.

Meanwhile, the story continues to produce a litter of cats and dogs, living together in mass chaos.   Here's Valerie and Joe Plame writing in the Guardian about the massive national security complex, something with which I agree with them.

At the same time they can't resist bashing their old nemesis Cheney for referring to Snowden as a traitor and how nauseating that is for them--the same couple who bashed Cheney for allegedly releasing information on a secret spy.  So when Plame's national security secret was released that was bad and may have caused people in the field to get dead or enemies to gain secrets, terrible breach of the law.  Now it's all about the public's right to know (yet not one mention of Obama in their piece).  Guffaw.

MORE  6/23/13

A good source of info.   Sorry folks, my jury is still out on this whole thing.  No doubt Snowden committed a crime by busting his clearance, but he might be a whistleblower.  Yes, he gave up unrelated info on NSA spying on Hong Kong and China--within their legal purview--but this info was likely spilled to provide some leverage to get out of town without being extradited (Hong Kong has "questions" for US on this, etc).

But when you lie down with dogs you get their fleas.  If he's going to use communist China, crony Russia, Wikileaks, communist Cuba and Marxist Venezuela to facilitate his freedom to leak more about America, that's a problem.  

TRUTH  6/23/13

The reason NSA, Bush, Obama and most of Congress and Mark Thiessen say we need this program is because it's basically the only tool left in the war on terror that can prevent an attack.  As Thiessen says, we don't interrogate anymore (Army Field Manual--they can remain silent) so there's little else to do but spy on communications.   But it's clear to any rational observer that the spying (even gathering metadata) violates the spirit of the 4th Amendment even if the SCOTUS says otherwise.

Obama sees this huge conundrum, keeps it quiet, then when busted says "we need to have a national debate".  Aside from the fact that such a debate should have been before his election, yes, let's have one.   Here are the choices--do we the people want to 'go it alone' as Thiessen says and react to the next attack instead of trying to prevent it, or do we the people want to give up some freedom and trust the government to do the right thing?   It's not a simple construct.

The president/CinC has the constitutional responsibility to uphold the 4th Amendment but he also has the responsibility to protect the American public from attacks both foreign and domestic.  If he tosses this program aside and another 9/11 scale event occurs we the people will largely blame him for 'not keeping us safe' or 'connecting the dots'.  And yes, some of the same people bashing him now over Snowden will be the ones protesting the loudest.

Maybe we should ask the question--why are we fighting?  What's the GWoT really about?  In my view it's about a clash of cultures between a secular and democratic west, largely rooted in free markets (such that they are) against a fundamentalist, repressive, orderly religious society that doesn't like the excesses and corruption they see from the west and believe they are on a mission from Allah to stop it, even if it means using the most banal and barbaric tactics.  Both sides present their respective rule of law: the West's secular courts system versus the fundamentalists' Sha'ria system.

The non-religious totalitarian societies have tacitly glommed on to the fundamentalist because they have a common enemy in the west.  Wikileaks is an example--they could care less what kind of communications are coming out of Russia or China or any other Marxist enclave.  This latter axis is totalitarian in nature, with ruling bodies handing down judgments instead of citizens (yes, in a perfect Wikileaks world a panel of experts would decide everything and/or it would be based on mob rule, the kind of 'peoples democracy' they envision).  A world run by Sha'ria would be like Iran--a group of Mullahs behind the scenes dictating everything.

So if we're to win this 'war' we have to win over hearts and minds to the western way.  Bush started the democracy kick to do just that.  He felt that people were inherently all the same and wanted the same things, and that democracies were less likely to invade their neighbors, start wars or sponsor terrorists.   The Arab Spring is sort of a continuation of that theme despite it's current ugly appearance.  It's likely the Obama folks feel that despite the rise of groups like HAMAS, the Muslim Brotherhood or enemy combatants like Ansar al-Sharia or al-Nusra, in the end the people will see the light and depose these strong horses in favor of more moderate secular democracies once they get a taste of self-rule. At least we can hope that's why they are pushing it.  At any rate the jury is still out on that concept.  What other way is there to export our values? 

But in doing so we must maintain our own values and precepts.  The worst thing in the world is the superpower telling everyone how to behave and pointing to American values when we're busy trashing them on a daily basis.  Obama said he wanted to close GITMO and reign in the Bush-era spying and secrecy but he's now been exposed as a fraud on that account, which damages the reputation of the West.  The theory that we're just BS'ing to raid their lands, take their oil and resources and make them loyal customers to our commercial products just gets more legs.   

So, do we the people want to deconstruct the spying network and fly this freebird alone, or do we want to talk democracy and freedom but chase down people like Snowden and others for exposing the security apparatus, making ourselves look like rank hypocrites?   Can any politician weather the storm after a mass-casualty attack by saying, "well folks, freedom isn't free"?   Are we as a society mature and patriotic enough to agree with that powerful statement while cleaning up the rubble of a destroyed city and burying our dead?   Or does that notion go counter to the very reason we have a Commander-in-Chief in the first place--to protect us from enemies--and besides, Google and the supermarket track everything we do anyway?    I just don't know the 100 percent correct answer.