Paris

The following line in this CNN report sums up the UTTER FAILURE of our western leadership (emphasis added):

Scores were killed in the coordinated attacks late Friday, leaving a nation in mourning and the world in shock. CNN will update this story as information comes in:

How could any thinking, informed person consider this attack 'shocking' in any manner? If anyone is shocked then the politicians are to blame for bamboozling them into a false sense of security by pretending these Islamic terrorists are 'on the run' or 'contained' or 'JV' or just some 'deadenders'.

This is a very sad night for western civilization.  And make no mistake, that's what this was--an attack on western civilization.  Paris is symbolic and the targets were symbolic. Let's hope the response is appropriate.

About those Syrian Refugees

Many reports have characterized the largely Syrian refugees flowing like a river into Europe as "military-aged males".  Indeed, that's certainly what it would appear from the media images.

Assuming that to be true, why is the United States letting military-aged males escape from Syria?  Isn't the US strategy to "train and equip" such males to fight for their country so our soldiers don't have to fight for their country?

Instead everyone is bending over backwards to resettle these military-aged males from Syria into the West.  Which theoretically suggests there will be no effective fighting force to muster against Assad, who has now invited Putey Poot to send troops and equipage to fight for him knowing we dare not risk any engagement.  Seems Trump has a point about our leadership.  That is, unless they are doing this deliberately.    

MORE 9/13/15

CNN is falling all over itself praising Germany for being so kind to the Islamic fighting-aged refugees flowing into their country.  In the screen shot below notice the headline.  But notice the breaking news headline bar above it.   Whoops.

Aviation Update

This story is making the rounds with peculiar wording, including on the Drudge Report:

Prominent online security expert claimed to have made one plane briefly fly sideways while he was a passenger on board, FBI investigation states

Emphasis added. How many people reading that actually believed the airplane was going along on a straight path then flew suddenly flew 'sideways', which technically would be, well, impossible? Here's how CBS explained:

During the interviews, "He stated that he successfully commanded the system he had accessed to issue the 'CLB' or climb command. He stated that he thereby caused one of the airplane engines to climb resulting in a lateral or sideways movement of the plane during one of these flights," said the affidavit, signed by F.B.I. agent Mike Hurley.

The documents say Roberts accesses the plane's controls via the in-flight entertainment system, his laptop, and an Ethernet cable.

Aside from the sensationalist nature of the revelation, his contention of hacking the flight computer and issuing a CLB command sounds like it would result in asymmetrical thrust.  Literally flying 'sideways' is certainly not something an aircraft could do, at least not in the world of elementary math and 90 degree angles.  A yaw condition would be something else, assuming this actually happened.     

Keep in mind this takeover revelation comes from Mr. Roberts, not the airline. And it comes from the court releasing an FBI affidavit, which also reads like a warning to everyone about how good the Bureau is at uncovering everything ever done on any PC, which they surely don't mind being out there in cyberland. There was no mention of the flight Mr. Roberts allegedly took over.  Also, it's not known whether his hacked command input actually led to a thrust increase or whether it was coincidental. 

Whatever the case, the FBI seems more interested in getting him in jail than using his information.  It will be interesting to see what happens to a guy who appears to be a cross between Duck Dynasty and Spook Central.  Surely he will ask for a jury trial if it goes that far.  

Of course this possible revelation opens a number of worm cans.  First and foremost, the 9/11 truthers will be pointing to it as incontrovertible evidence the aircraft were remotely controlled and flown into the buildings by Dick Cheney (there will be no links here). In a more recent story it could explain, in a SPECTRE kind of way, the disappearance of MH370.   Presumably also led by Dick Cheney in retirement.

And it may also come into the discussion about the overspeed crash of Amtrak 188 in North Philly.  This tragedy occurred only one day after ISIS had issued an online cyber-threat promising something that would "surprise" the infidels (for liberals reading, that means non-Islamic westerners like you).  There are several reasons they might issue a specious threat, such as watching to see how internet and security professionals reacted to prepare contingency plans, but then again, maybe there was something to it.  

Stories about of ISIS' superior knowledge of the internet and computer systems have been all over the web of late.  How hard would it be for them to employ a guy like Chris Roberts? 

Whether the news on Saturday about a risky attack in Syria where the US Military targeted ONE GUY--and one guy few had ever heard of before--has anything to do with this is unknown.  Until the raid most knew the name Abu Sayyaf as the AQ terror franchise in the Far East.  Risky raids just to capture or kill one unknown guy don't seem to be the hallmark of the Obama administration--how would they have explained mission failure/capture?   There are things we don't know, and won't know.   Sometimes for the good. 

Where is the Red-Headed Terrorist?

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

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

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

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

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


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

Yes, but it IS Islamic

The brouhaha continues over what America should call the violent extremists wreaking havoc across Arabia in the name of Islam.  Reacting to the criticism mainly from the right, Obama and his press staff have lately been twisting themselves into pretzels trying to pretend there is no Islamic connection to Islamic terrorism.  Who knows whether they truly believe that or are just trying to punt the problem to Billary or Bush III.

But the words spoken in his recent Countering Violent Extremism conference (which was supposed to blur the lines by also pointing to domestic right wing terrorists as well) suggest the president might be going off the deep end with his blind apologias coming down through the clouds from his judgmental perch atop Mt Nuance.

Here's what he said about the role of Muslims in the founding of America:

He seems to be saying Muslims were involved in the very founding of this nation.  Not to say there weren't any Islamic immigrants in the late 1700s, there just weren't enough to make much of an impact on the founding. Of course he knows this.

As a professor he also knows that America's first real engagement with organized Islam occurred when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the Envoy from Tripoli to Great Britain, who schooled them about paying the jizya tax if we expected our new independent American-flagged merchant vessels to get a free pass into and out of the Mediterranean:

That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

So in truth our first significant encounter with Islam was defeating violent extremists in North Africa legitimizing their barbarity through the Koran, which led to several Barbary Wars against terror.  In other words, nothing much has changed since then, except the players.

Of course this is a piece of history that our lecturer-in-chief will not expose because it might suggest that a fundamental interpretation of Islam calls for people to do exactly as the Barbary Pirates and AQ and ISIS have done.  And it will continue to happen unless, as Egyptian PM al-Sissi has suggested, a reformation occurs within Islam.  Maybe the president can't admit that (he can only condemn Christians) but living in denial will not change anything either.  

But maybe he's not living in denial.  Maybe, with no more elections to win and the likelihood of no more major quasi-socialist policy initiatives being passed through Congress to pad his legacy, Obama has nothing left but to troll the GOP in search of incendiary reactions the Democrats can then use as fund-raising fodder.  Would he stoop so low to play games with national security like that?  You be the judge.

But it seems clear he was playing games with the Executive Actions on pardoning millions of illegal aliens, which almost surely had to be intentionally messed up--nobody could be that stupid.  If so, the only explanation that makes sense is that he was throwing it against the wall knowing it would be struck down only to get juicy "anti-immigrant" sound bites that Wasserman-Shultz could use as more fund-raising fodder to stoke up donors for Billary along with producing anger throughout the illegal alien community. especially when the GOP fails to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

A Question for King Abdullah

Not surprisingly he's pissed about his pilot, and some reports say he's ready to strap in a fighter jet and do a few sorties himself.

But maybe, after the initial anger subsides, someone can ask about this...

She is the daughter of one of the most notorious dictators in the world, and a woman who has openly pledged her support for ISIS. But that doesn't mean Raghad Saddam Hussein doesn't have an eye for design, as she hopes to prove with her new jewellery range - complete with pieces unshamedly inspired by her despot father, as well as the husband he had murdered.

The Daily Mail asks, why is she still there?  Raghad was the subject of a Interpol Red Notice several years ago, and was listed on Iraq's most-wanted terrorist list. But here she is, living the QVC Kardashian life in Amman, Jordan, while praising ISIS and dropping more clues about their origins:

She expressed delight after militants captured Tikrit, her father’s hometown, last year, telling Jordanian newspaper Al-Quds: 'These are victories of my father’s fighters and my uncle Izzat Al-Douri.'

Does the fact Jordan won't give her up suggest they might fear a reaction from the hinterlands about sending a Hussein back to the Persians?  Or is it that that she's a dangerous character with some kind of dangerous leverage?  Or she herself is leverage against their neighbors?  Or is it just mercy for a spoiled twit who wouldn't understand the game of Risk much less be able to run a country or an insurgency? 

Someone could ask.  After all, someone thought she was worth putting on a list and she seems to have an endless supply of cash and that whole affair with her husband defecting to...Jordan, back in 1995, was just plain weird.

Dragging Congress Back to Iraq

Reportedly Obama will ask Congress for a new AUMF in Iraq to fight ISIL,ISIS, IS, Daesh.

"I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL," Obama said, referring to the Islamic State group.

An area of compromise, according to AP reporter Julie Pace.  Sounds more like a naked attempt to drag the GOP Congress back into Iraq and get them on the hook should the degrading and destroying not be complete before 2016.   They signed onto the old one (where did it go) but that war was 'ended' responsibly, perhaps one of the greatest accomplishments of the Obama administration.  Yeah, so that's a lot of hangout for the Dems if things don't go well over the next 18 months.

Anyway, we'll see if the previews match the puff and pageantry.

Somebody finally asked...

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



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

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

MORE, AND IT'S UNBELIEVABLE  12/12/14

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



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

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

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

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

Hans Blix didn't find them after all

Is this the October surprise Bob Beckel on Fox was rumormongering about last month?

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

It's a pretty slick Times report, complete with animated GIFs, all highlighting reporter CJ Chivers' account of thousands of chemical weapons shells found all over Iraq per ground reports and a Pentagon FOIA.

Wait thousands of shells, doesn't that qualify as a stockpile?   Not so fast, says Chivers...

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin.

Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them. In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

Chivers stopped just short of saying the United States was manufacturing chemical weapons for Saddam, but he went right up to the waters' edge, saying that American-designed shells had been sold to Iraq by European nations, wink wink, cue the Rummy shaking hands with Saddam photo.  While the story implicates certain European nations of actually selling the material to Iraq, nobody will cue the Jacques Chirac handshake picture with Saddam.

But we're left with this--there WERE chemical weapons in Iraq, lots of them, and they were never acknowledged.  Now ISIS likely has possession of the remainder.  All of which makes the reports out of Syria last year about rebels having used Sarin gas more credible.  And if true, part of the blame lies with Maliki, since the Iraqis, as members of the Chemical Weapons Convention, were responsible for getting rid of their old rusty chemical stockpile--but they never finished before ISIS rolled into town. 

But the Times didn't splash this report across the front page to vindicate BushCheneyBurton.  They did so presumably to give Obama an out card by saying the Pentagon/Bush covered up the fact that chemicals were found because they weren't the right chemicals, so it's not the Democrats' fault.  And Bush still lied because he said Saddam had active programs.

But Ace of Spades challenges the definition of "active", ie, the Times piece says, "The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West."

Hmm, looking back at history Bush had been fairly careful to avoid saying Saddam had active chemical weapons programs as a casus belli for war. He did leave the impression there were active programs, but mostly stuck to the idea that Iraq possessed chemical weapons and the facilities to produce them, which the Times has now authenticated.  Let's go back to the Iraq AUMF that Hillary, Biden and Kerry voted for:

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

That's to say Iraq entered a cease-fire agreement to destroy their chem-weapons and program.  While they might have mothballed their active program, they didn't destroy the "means to deliver" such as artillery shells. Instead they buried them all over the place.  And there were likely individuals who had the treasure maps to dig them up later.  One of those was not Hans Blix, whose UN team never found them in 2003 before the invasion.  Ergo, Saddam was in material breach.  Back to the AUMF:

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Doesn't thousands of shells constitute a stockpile?  At what point does a stockpile stop being a stockpile if they are not destroyed or rendered inert?  And notice again it says nothing about an active chem-weapons program.  More..

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

"Continuing to possess"--check. The left will point out "and develop" in reference to the chemical weapons (and biological), perhaps dredging up this brutal report by the WaPo in 2004 describing the Duelfer Report, which noted:

...no chemical weapons existed and that there is no evidence of attempts to make such weapons over the past 12 years. Iraq retained dual-use equipment that could be used for such an effort.

Which was simply wrong--munitions were there, buried underground.  What else did Mr. Duelfer get wrong?  The Kay Report on the Iraqi Survey Group done a year earlier stated:

We have multiple reports that Iraq retained CW munitions made prior to 1991, possibly including mustard - a long-lasting chemical agent -- but we have to date been unable to locate any such munitions.

Which was closer to correct.  The Times has finally located them.  Kay's report also left open the possibility that Saddam had explored reactivation of the chem program as late as 2002-2003, something Duelfer threw cold water on a year later.  Which was correct, considering the current revelations?

Of course this story leaves open the obvious political question:  if chemical weapons were indeed found in large quantities in Iraq why did the Bush administration remain silent about them?  Was it, as the left might say, a reminder of past sins in helping to arm the tyrant in an attempt to stop a worse band of tyrants (Iran), actions which might implicate the Bush family and friends?  Did we get rolled by our realpolitik of the past to the point where Dubya just said "the heck with it, we got Saddam, let's move on"?

Possible.  It would interesting to hear what James Baker has to say about it, assuming he could ever talk candidly. Hell, or George HW Bush.

Or maybe the Bush folks felt they couldn't justify going to war over old shells alone, which, even if passed along to AQ wouldn't do the kind of damage a bio or nuclear (or dirty bomb) would do.  This was borne out by the several attacks on coalition soldiers in Iraq using Sarin shells, which did relatively little damage.  Such munitions are also not easily transportable.  With terrorists swarming the country during the insurgency years it probably made no sense to start trumpeting "but they had chemical stockpiles"!  In the end this story is probably not going to change any minds either way.

But we don't live in history, we live in the present. Presently ISIS controls a lot of the areas where shells were found and were never destroyed, ergo, ISIS has chemical weapons. They may have already used them. A current political question would be "who allowed this"? The simple answer is partially contained in the idea that a certain president 'ended the war' in Iraq a little too soon.  In non-political terms perhaps this could explain why the 60 nation coalition hasn't been able to do very much to stop the advance of ISIS yet.

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?  

ISIS fighters in Mexico and Maloof

The WaPo's fact checker Glenn Kessler gives the recently hyped reports about ISIS-linked fighters being captured at the Mexican border, specifically claims by Arkansas congressman Tom Cotton, four Pinocchios:

As we’ve noted, just because something is on the Internet doesn’t mean it’s true. As a lawmaker, Cotton needs to be careful about making inflammatory statements based on such flimsy evidence. At the very least, he needs to expand on his sources of information. He earns Four Pinnochios for trying to turn idle speculation into hard facts.

In doing so Kessler mentions a World Net Daily article by Michael Maloof as contributing to the hysteria, reminding the readers that Maloof was a Neocon working for Doug Feith to find a link between AQ and Iraq immediately after 9/11.  He ended up getting his clearance pulled for associating with a Lebanese-American gun runner involved with arming former Liberian strongman president Charles Taylor:

The whole thing seems to have started with a highly speculative account on July 4 in WND, labeled an “exclusive” and titled: “New Border Risk: ISIS Ties to Mexican Drug Lords.” (ISIS and ISIL are other names for Islamic State.) The article quoted Michael Maloof, who it described as a former “top Defense Department analyst” and “expert on the Middle East...”Who is Michael Maloof? He gained notoriety in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as one of the key people involved in a DOD intelligence effort to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda and was likely to provide weapons of mass destruction to terror groups.

In other words, he's probably a boogeyman spreading more false info on Iraq.  What Kessler could not do is actually refute the ground reports evidently originating with actual Border Patrol agents (who have not been identified and likely will not be), but since US officials with security agencies say it ain't so, it ain't so.  As a result these congressmen will not likely be vindicated anytime soon.

Whether this is hype or truth is still not settled.  Secretary Johnson was not completely candid when first asked about the four 'terrorists' who were busted on 9/10 at the border--they have now been identified as PKK Kurds, with much emphasis on their stance against ISIS.  Kessler could have activated his James Comey spidey sense regards government truth and pointed to the obfuscation coming from some of these same type of officials after Border Agents told Breitbart that illegal aliens were being allowed to use "notice to appear" papers as valid ID to fly commercially (at taxpayer expense), a story later verified.

But while researching the evil Neocon Michael Maloof, a man who helped lead us down the primrose path to the dumb war, some interesting stories popped up.  Keep in mind Mr. Maloof was not front and center at the Office of Special Plans back in the day--that honor went to Douglas Feith, Stephen Cambone and Rummy.  Maloof and his partner in research (one has to be careful using the singular word partner anymore) David Wurmser worked under the radar for the most part.  In 2006 PBS Frontline interviewed Maloof, who said the intelligence had always pointed more to a nexus between AQ and other terror groups and certain Islamic states, including Iraq, than it did to Saddam having WMDs. Matter of fact, he called into question the 2002 NIE, which talked about the threat of Iraqi WMDs:

Tell me about the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] in October of 2002. Was it flawed?

I thought it was flawed. It basically talked about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I just didn't see it, and I wrote a memo up to my immediate boss saying this is not correct, but it was something that came out. Until August of 2002, we were talking about terror as the basis [on which] to deal with Iraq. Then this NIE comes out in October 2002, and then, by December, you have George Tenet, the former director of CIA, going in and personally briefing the president, saying that Iraq had all this WMD.

I'm told that even he questioned how solid the information was, and that's when Tenet gave the infamous statement that "It's a slam dunk; the evidence is a slam dunk." ... To this day I don't know what prompted their October 2002 report. It's something they did on their own. ... What changed between August and October of 2002? What happened? To this day I don't have it. I think it might have been their desire to try to take back the initiative. It's the only thing I can conclude. ...

Maloof also told Frontline that all their data was cross-checked with CIA for accuracy but the animosity was so strong they never got back much confirmation.  He thinks they were simply afraid to say they missed it (9/11) and didn't want somebody second-guessing.  Maloof claims his group was working to get policy makers useful info on a tight timeline--they all thought AQ or others would attack again very soon.  One could even wildly speculate that Maloof and his outfit might explain the entire Plame affair--an attempt by CIA to get back at Cheney and these guys.

Anyway, it's impossible for a yahoo blogger on the internets to independently vouch for his overall credibility but based on the interview he certainly doesn't sound like a crazy kook fantasist.  Fast forward to 2013; Maloof is interviewed by RT about the chemical weapons attack in Syria that prompted Obama to nearly go cowboy on Bashar Assad. His contention at the time was that the Sarin gas was being produced in..... Iraq:

RT: Can you tell us more about that classified document you’ve seen, which shows that the US knew that Al-Qaeda linked rebels in Syria had sarin gas?

MM: The document itself was published in August 2013 by the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC). It’s part of the intelligence community. The fact that some of it was actually captured in May along the border in Turkey and it was actually Al-Qaeda, and since it was disseminated my sources are telling me that production has probably increased significantly and sarin gas is being produced quite widely now. That it's actually ongoing and there's actually a Saudi financier whose name I’m trying to obtain right now.

There's that crazy Neocon, blaming WMDs on Iraq again!  But wait, this time his information was also mentioned by a former UN inspector, the head of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, and by none other than Pulitzer Prize winning liberal journalist Seymour Hersh, in a blockbuster expose completely ignored by US mainstream press outlets, which actually pissed off the socialists!

So OK, the stories about the ten ISIS fighters at the border or reports about ISIS working with Mexican drug lords may or may not be true.  There doesn't seem to be any hard evidence other than a few anonymous sources.  But certainly such a concept cannot be out of the realm of the possible, considering the ISIS-inspired terror attack that Canadian and American authorities claim they recently stopped in Canada.  Matter of fact, those concerned with Islamic terrorism should probably be more concerned on the northern border considering history.

But singling out a Neocon relic of the Bush years now working for World Nut Daily in an attempt to tamp down anti-Muslim hysteria (regardless of whether that person is credible or not), is something that usually works pretty well in today's vacuous media, unless or until disproved by actual events. And sometimes not even then.  So we will have to wait and see on this one.

From the JV Archives

..archives known as You Tube.  Here's the head of the 'intelligence community' speaking to Congress about the terror threat from a destabilized Syria back in January 2014:



James Clapper: "it's a huge concern to all of us". 

Here's the CinC talking to 60 Minutes last night...

Steve Kroft: What? How did they end up where they are in control of so much territory? Was that a complete surprise to you?

President Obama: Well I think, our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.

Emphasis added for context. So.. "they", the intel community, went under the bus.

But wait, no they didn't!  Not according to the admin press flaks today.

First, State spokesgal Marie Harf told CNN that even ISIS was surprised at how fast they took over parts of the Iraq.  She didn't say when they were surprised, such as if it was when they took over Faluja in early 2014 or Mosul in June, or Tikrit, etc.   She also didn't mention the trip al-Maliki made to the White House in November 2013 to plead for more ordnance and equipage to stop this looming AQ threat, which Obama acknowledged and promised support.  She just said everyone was surprised.  Wolf Blitzer responded by blowing kisses at her while winking. Basically.    

Back in the archives, press flak Carney talked about Iraq on November 1, 2013, saying that support would come but would not include 'boots on the ground'. Nevertheless the administration was tacitly acknowledging Iraq was in trouble almost a year ago (emphasis added)..

MR. CARNEY: The President believes it’s in the interest of the United States to have a robust relationship with Iraq and to help Iraq deal with its security challenges, and to help Iraq deal with its overall challenges as it makes its way out of decades and decades of dictatorship and tyranny, and then a decade of terrible violence.

And that's in the United States’ interest to do that. The President does firmly believe that it was the right thing to do to end that war. And he obviously believed that it was the wrong thing to do to get involved in that war. But when he became President, it was his responsibility to make sure that we ended that war in a way that protected our national security interests.

Q You keep saying that the President does believe that he needs to provide a relationship that helps with security. If Prime Minister Maliki is saying, hey, he needs even more help with security, does that mean the President would be open to some sort of special forces, some sort of troops? Or is there sort of a line?

MR. CARNEY: I don't anticipate -- no, I don't anticipate troops on the ground. What I think will be a focus of the discussions is the ways in which the United States can provide assistance. We are providing assistance and believe it’s important that we make that case on Capitol Hill. I wouldn't expect any announcements, but if you're asking about boots on the ground, I think we've made clear we withdrew from Iraq and we think that we can continue to provide assistance to Iraq in its effort against al Qaeda short of boots on the ground through our foreign military sales and through other means.

So the PM of Iraq itself told the admin in 2013 they needed help due to a growing threat, but months later they were all surprised when it actually occurred!   The funny thing is, Kroft's question wasn't necessarily about Syria but the speed of conquest across the entire IS area, including Iraq, which works better with the surprise meme (surprised the Iraq Army collapsed so fast).  Trouble is Obama blew the answer.  His reply to a question about the rapid expansion of ISIS was to blame Jim Clapper for not seeing the rise of ISIS in Syria.  Yet everyone saw that in 2013.

ABC's Jon Karl later grilled spokesman Josh Earnest about how the president couched the blame, coming with facts such as archived warnings given by the intel community in 2013 and even comments made by State officials at the Baghdad embassy in 2013 as to the unlikelihood of the Iraqi Army standing and fighting AQ.  Didn't matter, Earnest puppeted the official line was that everyone was surprised.

Ed Henry of Fox followed up and asked whether this wasn't an intelligence failure and whether Clapper or somebody should be fired.  Earnest bizarrely stuck to the script.

Finally, the NBC reporter asked if the White House had seen the information and simply misinterpreted it.  She was told no, everything was a surprise you see.   It's hard to know whether the fighters will fight.  Except that's not what Obama was talking about when he threw Clapper and company under the Greyhound.

But, that's their story and they're sticking to it, even after Obama flubbed it.   

This isn't hard to figure.  Obama is the most liberal Democrat to hold office since Roosevelt.  He came into office with two main goals-- "end" the foreign wars (which he likely considered US imperialism anyway, causing the terrorism) and make America a more socialist state through re-distribution (mainly via taxes and global warming initiatives).

The problem is O is not a Prime Minister or even simply a president, he is a Commander-in-Chief.  He shied away from directly confronting the growing terror resurgence in Iraq and Syria (due in part to his 'ending' the war in Iraq in 2011, which the press failed to mention today) as long as he could until heads literally started coming off.   Now he brags of a robust coalition dropping bombs and taking the fight to the enemy, go 'merica F yeah that's how we roll baby!  But we don't roll like that dumb Bush, because there ain't gonna be no combat boots on the ground even if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says he needs them to eventually win.

Yes, it's an assumption to assume Obama wants to 'win'.  With him winning is more defined on the domestic landscape.  Foreign wars are all hazy gray material, it's the Tea Party and GOP who are the real black and white terrorists and must be defeated at all costs!   The prez can't seriously expect the same ragtags who dropped their guns at the first sign of Toyotas approaching with black flags to suddenly pick them up and fight like Audie Murphy.  He's already said the citizen doctors, lawyers and accountants in the Free Syrian Army are incapable of defeating one force much less two.  And he knows the local Kurdish Pesh Merga with light arms are in business to protect Kurdistan, nothing else.

In reality he probably wants to bomb ISIS just enough to quell their advance but not so much that they remain in the top spot of domestic news cycles.  He still hasn't finished his domestic agenda and time is running out.  But he's willing to say anything to get it done. 

MORE  9/30/14

What a bizarre start to a press briefing.  State spokeslady Jen Psaki took over 7 minutes giving reporters a fairy tale rendition of how the administration was actually well aware of the ISIS threat all along and was almost ready to blast them after January 2014, back when they were being called the JV team.  She said she did it to correct some misunderstandings.  Eh, like from the president himself. who said everyone was surprised at their rise in Syria because Jim Clapper missed it?

As a Reuters reporter mentioned, if America was so engaged all along why was ISIS able to take over so much of Iraq so fast?   Her answer was the new line--the Iraqi Army sucked.  That's what surprised everyone (except the president, who blamed Jim Clapper).  But as ABC pointed out yesterday, Brett McGurk told Congress the Iraqi Army was not likely to fight back in January.  They are flailing. 

Denial runs deep

On Thursday a woman in Moore, OK was beheaded by a converted Muslim after he was fired from her company.  The suspect was reportedly yelling religious chants during the episode.   For some reason it didn't become a big story until Friday, whereupon it was explained as, although a little weird, just another episode of "workplace violence" with no 'nexus' to any terrorism.

Today the Drudge Report has a headline regards a nexus to terrorism, but a check of the mainstream news websites shows the story is already starting to fall off the front page.  

Meanwhile several reporters grilled White House press flak Josh Earnest on Friday over his steadfast contention that "Core" AQ has been "decimated". 



The White House is holding on to the thinnest of reeds to make the case, ie, Afghanistan is no longer home to AQ and Bin Laden is dead, so they can't easily hatch international plots.  Aside from the fact Bush had a lot to do with reducing their numbers, it doesn't really matter.  AQ has branched out into affiliates across the greater Islamic world to include individuals like Major Hasan.  The ideology is still being pumped by former number two Zawahiri and several other top leaders and operatives, who are training others to take over.  ISIS is a virtual state.  Continuing to say AQ has been 'decimated' makes our administration almost sound insane. 

Besides, it doesn't take a large personnel infrastructure, command and control, and millions of dollars to pull off attacks in the West that can kill thousands.  Our free society is full of vulnerabilities. 

The denial even extends to this new Khorasan Group, aka AQ, aka "AQ from Iran".   Iran has been helping AQ strategically to use them as leverage with the West over their nuke program as both factions understand that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a game-changer regards Israel and the Western powers.  Meanwhile our embassies in Tripoli and San'a have been abandoned due to unrest despite Obama recently using our actions in Yemen as a benchmark for success.

The sad fact is that despite the money we've spent and lives lost, Islamic radicalism isn't dead.  It's not on the run.  It hasn't been decimated.  It's a religious movement grounded in a harsh interpretation of a holy book that lays our political steps as to how lives are to be led, which is 180 degrees opposite of western values. It is literally a clash of civilizations.  The fight will be long and messy.  We have no choice but to continue or surrender large chunks of the world to this ideology.

But speaking that kind of truth to the electorate really doesn't help garner votes because Americans like their wars short and concise, not long and messy.  And they like their ideological sides, right and left, because the other side contains the evil stupid bastards responsible for the mess their side is having to clean up.  Not much room for understanding when this divide is allowed to remain wide open by political leaders for their own means.  

Back to Moore, Oklahoma.  If people truly wonder about what might turn a troubled young convict into a jihadist, read Morten Storm's book "Agent Storm", the chronicles of a Danish motorcycle thug who after years of trouble with the law converted to Islam and eventually befriended some of radical Islam's top leaders. Like Storm, Jah’Keem Yisrael, aka Alton Nolen of Oklahoma, found religion after years of trouble, perhaps drawn to the rigidity and paternalism of Islam.  He was possibly acting against an 'enemy' (bin Laden considered no Americans as innocent) by attacking his former employer.  Agent Storm, aka "Murad", eventually comes to his senses over the killing of innocents and turncoats to western intelligence to help them infiltrate AQAP and al-Shabaab.

It's a fascinating read (even if embellished some) not only shining light on radical thought but also on the contradictions of a free Western society that allows gay marriage, drugs, booze, rampant sex, scantily clad young women with tattoos and lax morals, which can be every bit as big a recruiter as was George Bush's Iraq war or GITMO.  The problem always goes back to the Muslim Sharia solution to such things, evidence of which keeps coming out on grisly web videos and is the main reason our Nobel Peace Prize President "who ends wars" has started bombing Iraq again and now Syria, even as his minions claim over and over that the enemy has been decimated.  

Sense out of Chaos

The Middle East has devolved into a tangle of alliances and factions so ridiculous it seems only a drunk man could make sense of anything.   A year ago the United States was calling for bombing raids on Bashar Assad, the new Hitler of Syria who had used WMDs on his own people; a year later, after no raids on Assad, America likely informs him (and Iran) of bombing raids on his enemies via Iraqi emissaries and he assists by not shooting at them. 

Over the same year Obama teetered on aligning with AQ factions, Syrian Islamic Freedom fighters, Iran, Iraqi Shiites, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Russia, and Hizballah.  Not to mention the craziness still taking place in Libya, which is being completely ignored by the US mainstreamers.

One of the goofier conundrums has been the Khorasan gang.  The leadership of this AQ-faction operating out of Syria formerly operated in Iran with the Mullah's blessings.  This is the same Iran that Obama and the West are negotiating with over a nuclear weapons program.  What in the world?!   We were told Iran's Shiites hate Sunni extremists.  And they do--but in this case the relationship might be a microcosm of how the game is played in the desert sands of Arabia, Persia and South Asia.

Iranian president Rouhani seems to have cleared it up in his UN speech:

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Thursday sought to leverage the crisis in the Middle East to ease sanctions on his country as part of nuclear talks, suggesting during a United Nations address that security cooperation between Iran and other nations could only occur if they struck a favorable nuclear deal.

Iran has a long history of holding AQ figures under 'house arrest', ie, outright supporting our sworn enemy. The Treasury Department long ago weighed in on this and only recently identified another supported group.

So we have a country holding Core AQ figures under their protection, allowing them to plot and plan free from Western drones, bombers and Special Forces, now telling Western nations if they want help get rid of a threat (Iran helped create) they best treat them right in the nuclear negotiations.  They are basically trying to hold us hostage, which should bring into question a lot of other things from the past.  

Hopefully the Hacker-in-Chief has a nifty poker hand to play on this one.  Give him credit so far--going after the Khorasans in the ISIS bombing raids was probably designed to remove one of Rouhani's poker chips, although word is the Khorasans have been "dark" since mid summer suggesting some had been tipped.  Eh, where is the booze...   

"The People's.." Fill in the Blank

Anytime someone has a rally or function and calls it "the People's" this or that, bank on it being a socialist rally. 

Case in point, climate change marches happened this week around the world, one big one in New York.  A reporter writing for Grist took a train trip from California to the Big Apple with about 170 attendees of "the People's Climate March" (they called it the People's Train while riding there).  In talking to one of the on board organizers she got this quote:

Make sure you have a lot of grandmothers at your protest, says Marina Skinner, who worked as a deputy field organizer for President Obama’s first campaign. “When you see an 80-year-old person, that is your walking billboard.”

And don’t be afraid to censor the protests that you are in charge of. “You are giving birth to a new movement,” Skinner says, “and one of the things that you learn in birthing class is that you are in control of your own birth.

When Obama and Biden were campaigning, if someone was holding a sign that wasn’t their message, they just told them to take that sign down. It was as simple as that. The civil rights movement did it. You can do it too.”

In other words, do anything or say anything, because the goal is so important that lying, deception or obfuscation are OK. After all it's for the planet!  And the children!  And 80 year old grandmothers!

This ends justify means principle is used by both sides in politics, but generally speaking conservatives tend to feel guilty after doing it while liberals tend to embrace it wholeheartedly.  Case in point, the president's gumby-like handling of the truth leading up to the 2012 election...


It's one thing for this principle to be used with campaign promises. It's quite another for it to be used with factual issues, such as a health care plan or the state of the climate.  Yet there's Al Gore five years ago, giving us science lessons and bold predictions that turned out to be a pile of dog poop.  The pie he got in the face for those gaffes never approached a slow day of news about Sarah Palin.  Contrast it to how Jon Stewart just came down on a few GOP congressmen.   

This week the same president who, as Stephen Colbert might say, was 'truthy' about his own health care plan and threats from foreign terrorists in 2012 will be telling everyone on Earth about the need to 'sacrifice' to save the planet.  What sacrifice?  Well, that's where the People's Climate March comes in, part of which became "Flood Wall Street":  they point to the sacrifice being the end of western capitalism.

Explaining Himself

The poor guy.  Nobody will let him eat his waffles.  President Holland, the GOP, the media, and the bitter clingers are holding him back--even the ghost of Reagan..

It was clear to the guests how aware Mr. Obama was of the critics who have charged him with demonstrating a lack of leadership. He brought up the criticism more than once with an edge of resentment in his voice.

“He’s definitely feeling it,” said one guest. At one point, Mr. Obama noted acidly that President Ronald Reagan sent Marines to Lebanon only to have hundreds of them killed in a terrorist attack because of terrible planning, and then withdrew the remaining ones, leaving behind a civil war that lasted years. But Reagan, he noted, is hailed as a titan striding the earth.

But he'll always have the Times to explain how everyone is racist and stupid and impeding his greatness.  Everyone including people his own military, as the article makes it clear he approved the Syria hostage rescue mission plan immediately upon delivery to his desk, executed only 'days' later, which comports with this version but necessarily with this one.   

But let's give him the benefit.  The Times piece clearly suggests Obama is blaming the public beheadings on his forced decision to war-monger, which was apparently the result of the failed rescue mission on July the 4th, a mission that if successful might have precluded a new dumb non-war war before its time. Nobody wanted those hostages out of there more than he did--because it meant he wouldn't have to deal with it right away.  There was no dithering or delay, his hands were tied by the intelligence knuckleheads who screwed up.

Meanwhile, our deliberator-in-chief was quoted as saying something interesting that's been puzzling me as well regarding the intent of ISIS with these brazen beheadings.  According to the Times:

If he had been “an adviser to ISIS,” Mr. Obama added, he would not have killed the hostages but released them and pinned notes on their chests saying, “Stay out of here; this is none of your business.” Such a move, he speculated, might have undercut support for military intervention.

Aside from blaming the American public for wanting revenge and forcing him to take focus off spending quality time breaking the law on immigration or redistributing more wealth, he's asking why they would poke the bear?  Why indeed.  Is it because they think the bear has no teeth or claws? Is it because they think the bear has gone into hibernation and won't act?  Are they just stupid true believers completely unaware of their limited power or don't care? 

Or is it because they think he will act and that's exactly what they want? The AP had a story last night about other barbarians operating in Syria that aren't getting as much attention:

At the center is a cell known as the Khorasan group, a cadre of veteran al-Qaida fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan who traveled to Syria to link up with the al-Qaida affiliate there, the Nusra Front. But the Khorasan militants did not go to Syria principally to fight the government of President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials say.

Instead, they were sent by al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to recruit Europeans and Americans whose passports allow them to board a U.S.-bound airliner with less scrutiny from security officials. In addition, according to classified U.S. intelligence assessments, the Khorasan militants have been working with bomb-makers from al-Qaida's Yemen affiliate to test new ways to slip explosives past airport security.

The fear is that the Khorasan militants will provide these sophisticated explosives to their Western recruits who could sneak them onto U.S.-bound flights.

In other words, how much coordination do these groups have and is the Khorasan group willing to be some sort of proxy international terror arm to ISIS that will be employed once the Obamabombing begins in Syria?  We are told that AQ doesn't get along with ISIS.  But maybe this is an enemy of my enemy thing and Izzat al-Duri's trained band of Islamic hooligans are craftier than they appear.  

Or on the flip side, maybe these ISIS guys are just as dumb as they appear and have been hoodwinked into provoking the bear by their ex-Saddam Ba'athist trainers who themselves might want the US to come in and destroy them so they can jump into the vacuum and re-take Iraq.  Useful idiots, just as Saddam viewed them.

Hopefully the Decider Guy can figure out all the possible chess moves on the back nine today.  

PS, snark aside, this Times article is troubling if any part of it is true.  

A Tale of Two Hostages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prime Time Two Step

The Communicator-in-Chief will be hitting the airwaves tonight to explain what he's not going to do in Iraq.   Sounds like must-not-see TV.   Here are some fearless predictions:

1.  We will not be going to war in Iraq again because the Iraq war is over and the troops have come home. Obama is the president who ends wars. 

2.  The over 1000 US servicemen/women boots on the ground already in Iraq are not combat boots.  If you believe they are-- then your mother wears them.  Non-combat boots are different boots. 

3.  Bush got us into this mess.  Never forget, always remember.   

4.  "ISIL" will be contained and destroyed, but the Gates of Hell are a long way from here.  It could take years and cost millions (no wait, that was from Animal House).  No, ISIL will be destroyed over time by the massive Kurdish forces and the Free Syrian Army we haven't armed yet (maybe because they sold Sotloff to ISIS).  The United States will provide limited air support designed not to significantly risk any lives except collateral lives, which are expendable.  We will never stop until we destroy this force of disaffected dead-enders who bitterly cling to their God and guns and xenophobia.   Wait, that's the Tea Party.    

5.  The world, at last count nine countries, is with us.  Compare that to the cowboy Bush, who unilaterally attacked Iraq on his own, with a few, maybe, 35 countries, but countries like Poland.  Haha, Poland!

6.  Tomorrow is 9/11.  AQ Core has already been decimated and bin Laden is dead.  We must nation-build at home, free illegal aliens, and build more highways, as soon as the real terrorists in Congress see the light.  Maybe they can take an object lesson from our new non-war strategy against ISIS.  God bless 'merica. 
    

In support of this major speech the president met with a bi-partisan set of luminaries, sometimes called "40 pound brains" in DC.  One of those was disgraced former National Security Advisor Sandy "Socks" Berger, who famously pilfered and destroyed archive documents in supporting the Clintons during the 9/11 investigation.

He also still believes the hit on Al-Shifa pharma plant in Khartoum in 1998 was based on good intelligence, this despite the intelligence being that Iraq was helping Bin Laden cook up VX nerve gas.  It's almost as strange as Obama hiring James Clapper, the same guy who said Iraq sent their WMDs to Syria.  

So what does Berger know and why was he willing to give up his law license to protect it?

What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for? Recently, the Board of the DC Bar, which had granted Berger his license, began asking those questions.

There was only one way to stop that investigation, to keep from answering questions about what he did and why he did it, to keep the Bar from questioning his colleagues in the Clinton Administration about what had been in the documents Berger destroyed. Berger took that step, surrendering his license, and stopping the investigation.

Maybe more interesting is why the GOP never made Berger a massive target of ridicule and investigation.  Was Berger's act similar to Bush's (and Obama's) classification of 28 pages of a congressional report on the 9/11 attacks regarding foreign involvement in terrorism, thought to be Saudi influence (you can glean a lot about this from the Memos for Record released by the 9/11 Commission, especially a guy named al-Bayoumi).  Or just skanky politics?  There was a lot of butt covering after the attack to protect reputations, careers and nest eggs so it's possible Berger was just trying to cover up something like this.

But was that alone significant enough to risk getting caught in a felony act and later surrendering his legal career?   Seems hardly.   Whatever the case, he was advising the president last night, which was completely un-newsworthy to the mainstreamers, who found this advisor on the other side of town much more appalling.

STRATEGY  9/10/14

Let's be clear.  Seriously.   Obama hasn't been a total slacker on terrorism, overall.  He's tried to hide the battle here and there (Major Hasan, Abdulhakim in Little Rock, a few others) but he has taken out a few top dogs.  Other than bin Laden, he's taken out al-Liby, Awlaki, the leader of al-Shabaab, and various lower level AQ terrorists on the wanted list.  Zawahiri is still at large, but doesn't seem very effective.  So as to what he calls 'core' AQ, he's done well.  Kept up with Bush's pace, shall we say.


Where he drops the ball is connecting dots.   AQ Core doesn't matter anymore.  The organization branched out years ago, knowing it would be harder to whack all the moles.  ISIS is simply a manifestation of the cause on steroids.  The reason he's dropped the ball on them is because he's so hung-up on Bush's 'dumb' war in Iraq--and all the political capital for the Democrats in continuing that paradigm--that he cannot see terrorists sharing the AQ ideology in Iraq the same as he sees them elsewhere.  So he pretends they are "JV" because he thinks "core" AQ is the only threat due to 9/11.   But 9/11 was a cheap operation done with a handful of jihadis out of Afghanistan.   They must all be confronted, no matter where they are. 

So that's what he needs to say.   He needs to remind everyone the battle is not against 'core' or 'ISIL' or various factions, it's against the radical Islamist ideology that relies on religious supremacy at the point of a scimitar.   No matter what dumbass name they call themselves.   He's correct they cannot be entirely eliminated, but if he wants to reach the people he's got to explain the enemy and why it's important to keep fighting back.  Such a thing requires the courage of calling a spade a spade.      

HERE IT IS..  9/10/14

This is what the White House is tweeting right now....

In other words, "you are either with us, or with the terrorists".   How bizarre, coming from the guy who called Iraq a dumb war, the worst foreign policy mistake ever, was against the surge, then heralded his removal of all the troops while people said it might be the greatest success of his presidency, a withdrawal that led to ISIS.  All so he could get in front of cameras and say we are going to destroy these terrorists and announcing his bold new doctrine, despite having ignored the terrorists in Iraq and Syria for over 3 years.

And this coming after an emotionless speech whereupon he declared the "Islamic State" was "not Islamic" (Bush once said AQ had "hijacked" Islam) and that America is safer as he's removed all the troops from Iraq while announcing 450 more are heading over there (making almost 1500 now).
 
It's as if we're living the script of a bad movie.   

Is that cool or what!

A nice Friday stroll after a trying week. 

The president detoured to Stonehenge to knock an item off his bucket list today.   No word on who paid for this private side trip, which was designed to tick off the fiscal conservatives in the Tea Party and John McCain, according to anonymous sources who were later arrested for leaking.   No word on any other sites that might be on the list or when US taxpayer funded transport aircraft might be diverted to help in future efforts. Insiders hint the North Pole is on the list, along with a certain bar in the Philippines.   

A lot was accomplished during the week despite the trials and tribs.   Obama finally won the argument with himself, declaring Friday that despite what Obama said Wednesday he would degrade and destroy ISIS to the extent possible, using a coalition of nine countries.  John Kerry quickly added there would be no "boots on the ground"--a "red line"--this despite over 1000 boots already on the ground.  No word on the consequences for Obama in breaking Kerry's red line or whether Kerry knew boots were already on the ground.  Asked for comment later Kerry's servant said the Secretary was out wind surfing.

But that wasn't the only news.  Asked by reporters earlier if the US considered itself 'at war' with ISIS, administration flaks quickly said 'no' despite the new strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS, who as recently as Wednesday could be managed but have apparently grown out of control and must now be destroyed, using a new rule created by Obama's pen and phone called the We Are Not at War Powers Bombing Act.  

This idea was expanded upon later by Joe Biden (he had stopped at a biker bar for directions after detraining at the wrong Amtrak station) who said America would pursue ISIS to the Gates of Hell as he chatted up a Hell's Angel biker chick he mistook for Hillary Clinton.  Administration flaks hurriedly tried to explain, saying "Obama ends wars.  We are not at war with ISIS, but they are at war with George W. Bush, who drove the car into the ditch and we're going to take away the keys".  NBC News' new Sunday Show host Chuck Todd nodded in agreement over his cheaters, scribbling something in his notepad looking serious.
         
Feeling left out, Michelle Obama and Jen Psaki considered starting a new hashtag campaign aimed at ISIS but couldn't quite come up with a catchy phrase like 'bring back our girls', considering what our citizens have lost in the past few weeks.  So that idea was quickly abandoned in favor of calling Bill O'Reilly a sexist meany on Facebook (or as BOR calls it, a machine).   There will be a one-hour Factor special on the brouhaha Tuesday.    

Some political analysts say the Stonehenge stop was a diversion away from a harsh reality of a president who won a Nobel Prize for ending dumb wars of aggression and, well, for being himself, having to start a war in an area where he had declared the war "over" after withdrawing all troops.  The decision to "destroy" anything appears to be a hard sell amongst his cabinet members and advisers since such would certainly require a commitment of forces to Syria, a place where he failed to uphold a self-imposed red line on the use of WMDs and failed to arm the light-moderate Muslims fighting Assad, who have now become moderate-severe Muslims (along with the renovation of ISIS). According to other anonymous sources the stop at Stonehenge was a mind exercise in exiting boxes, while Ron Paul supporters claimed it shows that aliens exist and called for 9/11 to be re-investigated.