So Much for Interrogation

As the Republican Party teeters on the verge of collapse and the dawn of a third party awaits, the administration has seemingly fumbled the football on the one yard line with respect to the AQ terrorist caught in Libya:

Al-Libi was whisked off the streets of Tripoli on Oct. 5 and held aboard the USS San Antonio, where he was locked in the brig and questioned without Miranda rights, U.S. officials said. Because of what U.S. officials have described as a serious medical condition — his family says it is severe hepatitis — he was taken within a week to New York, where he has been under indictment since 1998.

Something interesting is going on here. Notice the WaPo's article on this--one of the first out--and how they described the medical condition's factor in moving him from interrogation to Miranda Rights:

U.S. officials said a chronic preexisting medical condition had prevented them from keeping Ruqai detained any longer aboard the USS San Antonio, where he was taken after he was captured outside his home in Tripoli on Oct. 5. His wife told CNN that Ruqai has hepatitis C, which damages the liver.

The FBI-led High Value Detainee Interrogation Group had been questioning Ruqai aboard the USS San Antonio. He had answered some questions, but the questioning was cut short when Ruqai began refusing food and water, according to law enforcement officials.

Bold to point out that a person who is "refusing food and water" is normally said to be on a hunger strike, since otherwise they will die.  Refusing food doesn't normally lead to productive interrogations after a few days time. 

The media is being very careful not to jump to that obvious conclusion, witness the New York Times and what appears to be a press release from Jay Carney suggesting that al-Liby's refusal to eat might not have actually been a hunger strike.   Of course the result is the same--get caught, have a medical condition, refuse to eat, get moved to the criminal court system with no more interrogation.  And according to the WaPo they hardly got anything out of him before he stopped eating:

The FBI-led High Value Detainee Interrogation Group had been questioning Ruqai aboard the USS San Antonio. He had answered some questions, but the questioning was cut short when Ruqai began refusing food and water

Now he's Mirandized and lawyered up and doesn't have to speak to anyone anymore, which can't be good considering his legacy status in AQ and reports he was trying to put together an affiliate in North African Arab Springistan.

It's obvious from the spotty and careful press coverage they don't want people to conclude that the CinC boxed himself in on this terrorism stuff by making a big production of how wrong and horrible Bush was and how he would never stoop to the same tactics.  Up to now he's been using the 'kill list' to simply bump off AQ figures who popped up, which prevented this kind of messy problem.

But that was before the election. Now when they find someone who might be useful the terrorist knows going in that 1) they will only use the Army Field Manual in the interrogation, 2) Obama doesn't want anyone else at GTMO because he vowed to close it and has not, 3) force-feeding through tubes is not very popular on the evening news, even with terrorists, and 4) Obama has come out against 'torture', therefore the last thing he'd want is to be force-feeding someone in a secret Navy brig or God forbid have them drop dead.

So where is our advantage?  The Constitution is protected, you say.  But the laws of war allow someone deemed to be engaged in armed conflict to be picked up and detained until the end of hostilities. Obama has this power, which he partially used when directing Delta Force to make the capture, which was based on the AUMF.  Now al-Liby has apparently forced himself from the War on Terror realm into the civilian terrorists-are-no-different-than-car-thieves realm--after less than 10 days.  And if he's found not guilty in court he'll be free as a bird--no backup GTMO for him.  Hopefully the president explains this to the American people. 

Radical Islamist Update

America is coming up on the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.  It's hard to believe, but it's also hard to believe we're still fighting the war, and fighting it the way we are.   

Today we have a story about the brother of one of AQ's top two being arrested (again) in Egypt.  He was previously arrested by the Mubarak regime, then freed when the Muslim Brotherhood was elected to power, now he's back behind bars.

Mohammed Zawahiri's name should ring a bell with anyone following the back stories of the Arab Spring and the Benghazi attack because he was the one who helped organize a protest crowd outside Embassy Cairo last year with the purpose of releasing the Blind Sheikh that eventually led to black jihad flags flying over several embassies.  Does he know where his AQ brother is hiding?   Will the Egyptian military do some 'enhanced interrogation' to find out?  After all, the administration just issued a worldwide terror alert based on a conversation between Ayman and the leader of AQAP.  Or would that be cruel?   

Meanwhile, where is Morsi?  Nobody has heard a peep from him since July 3.  Nobody is even asking. As he languishes somewhere the coup leaders are on the verge of repeating history despite the Obama administration's insistence of wanting an 'inclusive' Egypt going forward.  General Al-Sissi is acting as if Obama and Kerry don't really exist.  At the same time Republicans are conflicted because they don't want the Brotherhood to win either, nor does Israel.  As the post-9/11 period shows, laws are made for the little guys. 

Here in the homeland (don't you just hate that term, but the alternative is motherland or fatherland) we have a trial going on in military court regarding Major Nidal Hasan, who, in acting as his own attorney is trying hard to prove himself guilty to the consternation of the military court.  In the process of this charade a real news story trickled out a few days ago about Spc. Frederick Greene, a soldier shot twelve times by Hasan (after he yelled Allahu Akbar and opened fire).  Experts say he was only shot twelve times because he made a charge on Hasan trying to stop him. In other words, he's a true American hero.

Doesn't such a person deserve to be the subject of national media coverage?  There have been a few stories but nothing near top billing.  And what about a posthumous medal?   Stories say the Army won't be giving out medals to those shot at Ft. Hood due to them classifying it as "workplace violence" since such awards could taint the trial.  As if they think Hasan might be innocent.  Hopefully after Hasan proves himself guilty they can rethink the medal issue. That will probably be after Obama is out of office since they clearly don't want anything that might take away from the we-killed-UBL terror legacy.

The irony is that soldiers at Ft. Hood stage for deployment to go fight crazed jihadists in foreign countries who act just like Hasan.  Had Hasan been a Taliban member there would have been no trial, but since he committed his act of war on a base it's completely different or something.  It also appears possible they don't want to offend American Muslims by calling a white Baptist soldier a hero for trying to stop Hasan.

In that same politically correct vein several organizations are organizing a "Million Muslim March" to be held on 9/11, presumably to bring attention to the injustices done to American Muslims since 9/11/01.  Doing so is their guaranteed constitutionally-protected right.  But when considering that Hasan and Abdulhakim have killed more than the total of retribution killings of Muslims after 9/11 it's a stretch to say there's any serious discrimination occurring other than nasty glares.  Such an event will only sow divide and hard feelings.   

The leaders say they also want to condemn terrorism, which is worthy, but clearly their main grievance is not terrorism or else they'd be holding the rally on May 1.   Actually, their main goal seems strangely in line with the Democrat Party's goal of riling up the conservatives.  That should surprise no one, since the war on terror has been used a political football for over a decade now.

So here almost 12 years out from the attacks one can ask, are we winning? 

Portland Shooting and other Crazy Things

Welcome to upside down world.

So there's a random shooting at a mall--during Christmas shopping season--by this guy...

By the way, is that a keffiyeh he's wearing?  And yet, there no mention of possible terrorism.  The media scratches its collective head and says, "we may never know the motive".  Well hell, other than some kind of insane crazyperson justice there are a few other possibilities.  Perhaps he just saw the Mohammed video. 

Apparently we've reached a point where the media doesn't even bother quoting an FBI guy ensuring it wasn't connected to terrorism before an investigation has even begun anymore.   Now the media is perplexed because he had no apparent connection to the victims.  Yeah--just like the 9/11 hijackers, Major Hasan, Abdulmuttalab, Abdulhakim, Shehzad and almost all jihadists or highway serial killers.  But don't worry, evidently Barney and Andy up there in the Clackamas PD will be handling it.

MORE..  Jawa says "crazy guy".  Yessir, he's crazy regardless of whether he's a lone nut, lone sudden jihadist, lone wolf, lone hockey mask killer, lone mall killer, etc.   That fact has never been in question.  During the Clackamas Sheriff press conference the spokesman did address the terrorism angle--adamantly dismissing a report that the FBI had taken the lead on the case as a terrorism investigation. 

Other items--his birth name was not Roberts, he was raised by a woman named Roberts, no mentions of his father or background in the press reports so far.  Questions remaining would be who he reportedly stole the gun from and his ancestry.  It's looking like loser snap syndrome.  Not sure which is worse to consider for the future--sudden jihadists or nuts who for some reason can't just kill themselves in a stairwell without first trying to take out scores of others.     
------

Here's a headline for you...

"Tea Party protesters punch Democrat, tear down Center for American Progress tent".

Or how about this one...

"Andrew Breitbart declares a coming 'civil war'".

Yet we have the Crowder punchout and Hoffa, Jr. stories being covered a little differently.  You remember Hoffa, who once appeared at an Obama rally and said they had to 'take these son-of-a-bitches out' referring to the violent, gun-toting "Tea Baggers".     


-----

Finally, Senator Robert Menendez allegedly had an illegal alien sex offender working for him in his office.   The stuff is now hitting the fan--perhaps delayed intentionally until after the election, which he won.  The illegal is in the process of being deported. 

Contrast that to Meg Whitman, who employed an illegal maid through an employment service.  The maid, possibly coerced by the Brown campaign into coming out in return for something, splashed herself all over the media and was likely instrumental in taking out Whitman's bid to become the California governor.  As far as is known that Maid, Nicky Diaz, is still in the country.   She was even honored at a 'gala'.  

Saving Syria

While the president draws red wavy lines in the sand over the presumed WMDs in Syria (instead of calling for UN inspectors) and the prospect of shock and awe 2.0 lingers over the region, it seems Obama should unclench his fist and open the hand of diplomacy.  We've got some top notch diplomats just sitting around while they could be saving the world.

There's Nancy Pelosi:

Dennis Kucinich:

And Diane Sawyer:

Gee, maybe if someone just took some new music to load on Assad's iPod this whole warmongering, WMD thing could be avoided..

We're Losing the War...

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

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

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

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

Terror, Con't

As the skepticism grows about the far-fetched Iranian assassination plot evidently the administration has decided to reveal a few more details. The WaPo's Peter Finn relays the information from "officials", who explain that Arbabsiar had a failed marriage and financial problems in Texas and had "moved" to Iran:

This year, the 56-year-old Arbabsiar, running from a series of failed businesses and a collapsing marriage, returned to Iran to live. And Shahlai apparently decided that he had found another proxy to strike at two of Iran’s principal enemies: the United States and Iran’s regional rival, Saudi Arabia. The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, is a key foreign policy adviser to King Abdullah.

U.S. officials say that Shahlai hoped that Arbabsiar, by virtue of his time in Texas, might be able to get in touch with Mexican drug traffickers who would kidnap Jubeir. The plan allegedly later evolved into assassinating him in Washington.

It goes on to say that Shahlai (the guy behind the Karbala ambush in Iraq) gave him the wherewithal to return to the US and look up contacts in the Mexican drug gangs to pull off the plot. Supposedly Arbabsiar thought the nephew of a female friend was connected with Zetas and that turned out to be our mole.

Early reports did not emphasize that Arbabsiar had 'moved' to Iran, they just painted him as a happy-go-lucky Texan named Jack. If he had indeed moved back home that certainly could explain an unpatriotic turn. Also, "Jack" was married to a Latina. So it's not out of the question he could have some Mexican connections. It's also not out of the question the US knew he was a cousin of Shahlai and were watching him closely when he returned to Iran. Or even deeper Clancy-esque stuff. No doubt money was involved, maybe on both sides.

None of which gets Iran off the hook or removes their snookering. People ask why they would risk working with Arbabsiar--good question--but perhaps part of the overall thinking in Tehran was to create the image that the Mexican drug gangs were in league with Iran to create more terror and fear in America. If so, well it's ashamed it backfired in their fat faces. But whatever the rationale this plot looks more and more reality-based and suggests the Mullahs might be getting desperate. Let's hope they don't do what desperate men often do.


Meanwhile the Drone Contingency Operation to combat man-caused disasters is going quite well. Ah, remember the days when the Global War on Terror was just a bumper sticker under George W Bushitler who kept terrorists locked up in secret eastern European gulags? Well, we've moved on to kill, kill, kill! Hey, it's a war. Er, a contingency. Whatever, we're kicking ass.

Of late they've knocked out a major Haggani leader and of note, the Blind Sheikh Omar Rahman's son. He was just recently around Tahrir Square stirring up trouble with the Brotherhood. And this morning we learn that Awlaki's son was turned into desert in south Yemen. That's a lot to put on a bumper sticker.

Belief in What?

CNN's "Belief Blog" is at it again. Here's today's lineup:


Beginning at the top left icon, a story about whether Christianity can stop pornography. In other words, lots of Christians are into pornography and this hypocritical chaos over sexuality is something to behold.

Moving rightward, the next icon tells of a touching story about congressman Keith Ellison's conversion from the "ritual and dogma" of the Catholic church he suffered as a lad to the "multi-national congregation" he found in Islam as a college kid. Right wingers are mean to him because of it, but he laughs them off.

Onward, the next story is about an atheist getting through AA despite her view of the counselors and her fellow participants as a bunch of Jesus nuts. God bless her for enduring the twin struggles.

The next story is kinda weird, one about a flight attendant aboard the D.B. Cooper hijacking airplane whom the pilot credited with being a calming influence on the hijacker, possibly saving lives. It details her mysterious subsequent venture to a convent followed by a name change and later move into obscurity. She's either nuts or in some kind of witness protection program.

The final top icon deals with 'speaking Christianese', which can be summed up by the final few sentences:

Speaking Christian can become a way of suggesting a kind of spiritual status that others don’t have,” he says. “It communicates a kind of spiritual elitism that holds the spiritually ‘unwashed’ at arm’s length."

By that time, they’ve reached the final stage of speaking Christian - they've become spiritual snobs.

Finally, the main story about how religion was affected by 9/11. There are four bullet points..

1) A chosen nation becomes a humbled one.

In other words, the chickens came home to roost. America was not really as exceptional as her idiot patriotic naive citizens believed. 9/11 proved we were no better or worse than Zimbabwe. So take that, wingnuts. The empire is falling so wake up and relish the reality of violence like everyone else in the 3rd world (even if America had already suffered two terrorist attacks on large buildings in previous years under Clinton, when sweetness and light prevailed and none of this was ever mentioned).

2) The re-emergence of "Christo-Americanism."

Summary--cut the Islamophobia you Bible thumpers. Muslims didn't attack us on 9/11, extremists who happen to be Muslims did. It wasn't about their religion at all, but it appears to be about yours.

3) Interfaith becomes cool.

Or in other words, believing in your Christian religion as before became un-cool. You didn't realize how bigoted you were but now you do, and all religions are correct and all express the truth--except yours, which is full of holes.

4) Atheists come out of the closet.

Yes, largely to smear militant Islam with general Christianity and Judiasm so as to blame ALL religions for the attack instead of the religion for which the attackers martyred themselves. In other words, rather opportunistic. Madalyn Murray O'Hair would have surely approved.


Summary--despite what CNN says 9/11 didn't vastly change the religious landscape other than to open a lot of eyes to the threat of militant Islam while allowing others to condemn Christianity as a participant in the evil. Yet Christians didn't form mobs to burn mosques or hunt down people who looked Muslim, instead many of them reached out to understand, some in a state of populist guilt brought on by stories like these. Of course, it's not hard to connect these dots to Rick Perry, Sarah Palin and other conservatives, but surely that's a coincidence.

MORE 9/4/11

Now the Belief Blog is highlighting a website that allows Muslims (or those appearing Muslim) to log-in and describe how they've been persecuted by Tea Partiers since 9/11. OK, it doesn't specifically say Tea Partiers, or baggers, but we all know who the culprits are, don't we?

Who Won?

Trying to boil down the Commander-in-Chief's Afghanistan drawdown victory retreat speech, and it's shaping up like this:

We were attacked on 9/11 and everyone was united and we went in to displace the Taliban and kill AQ. Bush sucks, Iraq. The Taliban came back because Bush sucks, so I had to go in with 30K extra corpsemens because it was the real front in the overseas contingency operation. We sent bin Laden to hell, yeah--no thanks to the Pakistanis, who are still important allies helping us end this war responsibly in victorious retreat. Now it's time to come home and nation build here in America by passing another trillion dollar stimulus.

Er, except in Libya, where we don't have a single soldier on the ground mind you, because they are behind computer terminals in safe zones targeting drones dropping hellfire missiles to exact regime change that doesn't violate the War Powers Resolution like Bush did by going to Congress.

No, I promised to end our wars, win or lose, because I'm not Bush. And don't worry about the Taliban coming back or AQ opening bases there and attacking us again after we're completely out by 2014 because, well, they won't. Besides, by 2014 it will be the waning years of my second term and it won't matter as much because my legacy will be about health care and immigration reform. Anyway, don't forget that Bush started the wars that I'm having to end responsibly and he used torture.

At least that's what I took from it. But I might be a tad cynical.

Suggestion for Peter King

In another CNN 'Belief' piece that appears cleverly designed to bash conservatives and Republicans, a 9/11 mother, Talat Hamdani, reminds readers that her late son killed in the Twin Towers was an American too, and she's pretty appalled about Rep Peter King's hearings to single out Muslims planning domestic terror.

There's some validity to her opinion. America has long struggled to balance a melting pot society without devolving into bitter factions; add in the recent threat posed by radical Islam it's only natural for some people to succumb to xenophobic chants. In World War II FDR handled that problem by rounding up anyone who looked like or were related to the enemy (at least one of them) and locking them away--but we must strive to not repeat the mistakes of our past.

Some believe Rep King is doing just that, Ms. Hamdani being one of them. She advocates for slightly changing his agenda:

Make no mistake: As a mother who lost a son, I am aware of the need to ensure that our country is secure, that an event like 9/11 never happens again, and that other mothers do not have to bury their sons. And I understand that it is the job of our elected officials to ensure that we are safe. But I reject the notion that it is mainly Muslims in America who pose a threat to our security. Domestic terrorism stalked America before 9/11, and it continues to come in all forms.

That is why I support the call from Rep. King's fellow congressmen and a coalition of Muslim, civil rights and interfaith groups to expand the hearings to include a consideration of extremists of all kinds, not just those who are Muslim.

In other words-- everybody say it --TIMOTHY MCVEIGH! He's the one shining light in the left's arsenal of defense of the domestic jihad from angry teabagging union busting Republicans. They even name conservative TV characters McVeigh to make sure nobody forgets that domestic terrorists can be lily white Christians, too, even if they are fuzzy agnostics. Close enough!

The problem is that CNN and most of their alphabet network comrades, along with most in the reality-based community in general, have forgotten too much about Oklahoma City and may need to be reminded of a few things.

For instance, they've forgotten Joe Doe Number Two. They might remember Richard Clarke's testimony in the 9/11 hearings when he apologized to America for government failures (wink, wink, Bush) but have forgotten the passage in his book where he speaks of McVeigh's bombs being duds before Nichols went to the Philippines (where master bombmaker Ramzi Yousef, KSM and other jihadists were lighting at the time).

So here's a recommendation for Rep King: take Ms. Hamdani's suggestion to heart. America can always benefit from knowing whether any far right militia groups might be plotting insurrection--like these guys. It would also be helpful to know if any of them are so determined to overthrow the government that they'd actually turn to our sworn enemies to obtain help. So bring it on--surely we can all handle the truth.

MORE 3/7/11

Both CNN and Fox News have stories heralding King's upcoming hearings on Thursday. Notice the difference, keeping in mind that Fox is supposed to be biased network.

By the way, the Fox version mentioned that King will summon the father of Carlos Bledsoe, al Qaeda name Abdulhakim, who allegedly shot and killed a Little Rock Army recruiter in 2009. This case alone might be worth the hearings if nothing else but to answer a few questions. One, why was Bledsoe not charged with a federal crime despite targeting members of the military in a self-proclaimed jihad? Arkansas prosecutors are going for the death penalty but his lawyers--the ones he keeps trying to get rid of--keep trying to get him declared not competent for trial; psychologists keep determining that he's sane enough. We already know such people are crazy but not necessarily insane--that's sort of the point.

Perhaps keeping it within Arkansas has effectively squelched coverage from the national press. Bledsoe himself has claimed the FBI knew about his background and failed to stop him--it appears they knew he went to Yemen and was radicalized.

Also, as we approach the hearings Obama has now leaked that he'll restart the GTMO military tribunals soon. At the same time a video was spotlighted today on Drudge and other sites showing helicopter footage of 9/11 taken from an NYPD chopper. It was leaked to Cryptome. Interesting timing.

The al-Huxtables

Forget the foolish notion that CBS's main journalist Katie Couric thinks a Muslim version of the Cosby TV show could somehow do for Muslim-American relations what it did between whites and blacks--it's her general cluelessness that warrants the clown hat.

Most people understand that while black people might have been pissed at white America for decades of injustice they weren't suicidally at war with the concept of America in general. They just wanted a fair piece of it, and to be treated fairly.

Is that what Muslims want? They don't have a long history of being treated unfairly here--most injustices stem back ten years or so to about the time some radical members of their faith tried to take out the government. Faisal Rauf is certainly being treated fairly--sometimes with kid gloves--yet he wants a version of Sha'ria law for America, not equal justice. How would a Muslim Cosby Show cure that?

More than likely it would turn into a cauldron of politically correct propaganda to advance certain agendas with little resemblance to reality.

But let's humor the journalist for second. How might a Muslim Cosby Show go?

First, there would be a few tough production decisions to make upfront about how this mythical al-Huxtable family would be depicted. Such as, would the dad be modern or fundamental in his religious pursuit? If not fundamental, wouldn't that offend the fundie branch to the point of perhaps sparking a real life fatwa from Awlaki? Hmm, maybe that could be an episode.

And what sect? Sunni? Shi'a? Sufi? They would have to be careful there, but that's at least three episodes, showing them fighting ala Hatfields and McCoys with their opposite-sect relatives!

How about the wife? Veil or not? Burkha? Hijab? Nothing? Maybe she could be an Americanized version, an ex hippie type who shunned her faith with her radical daughter deciding to wear the veil. Doing the reverse (daughter defying the veil) might cause a strong dad to have to do an honor killing but boy, think of the ratings! Sort of like who shot JR, does he or doesn't he.

How about all the things that tempt modern young boys? Would the son, let's call him Omar, be tempted by hot little white prostatots down at the corner bijou? How would they handle it?

And what of jihad? Taboo subject or would the al-Huxtable family condemn it? But if they condemn it wouldn't that land them with a real life fatwa from Awlaki? One might imagine Omar or another son grappling over whether to self-explode at the Christmas lightning festival, being counseled by some faraway Imam via email. Or the FBI. So many possibilities.

And Lord have mercy, what would they say about Miss USA? (I'd have to TIVO that one, btw)

Yes, yes, the above would be used by Couric to make her point--see, these rednecks really DON'T understand Islam in America. And maybe we don't. But most of us understand that the friendly guy down at work who smiles but talks a little too much about religion has been known to blow up or open fire at times. It's darn hard to identify the enemy sometimes. And the enemy right now is basically 100 percent Islamic. But hey, maybe an Islamic version of Cosby would clear that up a bit better, so heck, bring it on.

MORE 12/31/10

Here's an irreverent "Muslim year in review" from 2010 (or whatever year the Muslims are using). The list generally makes fun of people like moi, but you know, I could actually deal with an al-Huxtable show that made fun of people like me--a comedy--with perhaps an Archie Bunker character rooming with Abdul and Mohammed and the zany hilarity produced by their different worldviews. That might be fun, joking back and forth like Arch and the Meathead.

But notice she did a year-end review and never mentioned any of the American Muslims captured in jihad stings/busts or the turmoil produced by the package bombs, or the chilling words from Attorney General Holder. And that's part of the problem. While our soldiers fight 100 percent Muslim Armies in Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan, and American Muslims occasionally pop up in defense of the enemy, we have people doing their best to whitewash the true hate and turn it around on the victims as bigots. Even Archie wouldn't do that.

Fair Haired Games

The Plame movie is out, and Jack Cashill has some comments for Sean Penn. Here's one:

In the film’s funniest moment—I spontaneously guffawed—the Wilson character claims that he and his wife had no interest in publicity.

The rest are better. As for me, I still have two main questions...

1) If Wilson knew there were no WMDs in Iraq after his February 2002 visit to Niger why did he sit silently until May on 2003? He claims to have yelled at someone in State after the sixteen word State of the Union speech yet waited until June to drop his Africa story (anonymously at first), conveniently after Miller had returned empty-handed from her WMD embed. She had Wilson's contact number in her day planner along with "Valery Flame" written as well, which she served jail time for refusing to answer about. As Cashill points out, after the invasion (but before May) Wilson spoke to a peace group and said Saddam still might use his WMDs. He was a TV analyst before the war yet never mentioned his insider knowledge.

2) What transpired during his breakfast meeting in May 2003 with NY Times reporter Nicholas Kristof in which Plame was also in attendance? According to reports she didn't speak but if so, how did Wilson explain his trip to Africa? In his later NY Times Op-Ed he made it seem like Cheney sent him--did he tell Kristof this lie? Even the movie called that a deception (lie). What did Plame say other than good morning, and why would she even attend other than to give his story credibility?

There could have been deeper things going on. After all, both the Times and CIA had everything to gain from a "Bush lied, people died" meme after providing all the daily briefings and via reports from folks like Judith Miller and Tom Friedman. If the Times couldn't shift the blame they would soon become a target of their own far left clientele, perhaps to the point of being called war criminals (or even worse, Bush facilitators). Oh well, maybe we'll get a Wikileak on this one day.

UPDATE 12/5/10

Evidently the WaPo editorial board reached their limit of Plame movie chicanery this past Friday and penned this:

"It's accurate," Ms. Plame told The Post. Said Mr. Wilson: "For people who have short memories or don't read, this is the only way they will remember that period."

We certainly hope that is not the case. In fact, "Fair Game," based on books by Mr. Wilson and his wife, is full of distortions - not to mention outright inventions.

And it gets better from there. Fair game? Here's another famous term--"case closed".

Dissecting Their Dissection

What a bizarre spectacle: two days after NPR fired Juan Williams they actually held a roundtable discussion on their "Tell Me More" show to ponder the legitimacy of the firing. Wow, they really are fair and balanced!

The panelists included Richard Prince, an editor at the WaPo (where Williams has worked), John Watson, a professor of communications/journalism ethics at American University, and Asra Nomani, a Muslim author, who said this [emphasis added]:

What I believe Juan Williams did was express, unfortunately, the position of many Americans in their distrust of Muslims. I am Muslim. My father's name has Muhammad in it. We would be profiled if we go through airports because, you know, I buy tickets at the last minute and I fall into the classic profile that you have.

But I got to tell you, when I went to Great Falls Park the other day, and I saw a woman in an full-face veil and her husband had a little leather bag that wasn't looking like a picnic basket, I felt a little nervous. And there was a park ranger behind me who clearly was on their tail.

What Juan Williams expressed, I believe, is the sentiment of many people and including Muslims. Muslims profile each other all the time. When you walk into a mosque and you see other Muslims, you say, oh look, he looks like a Jihadi. Or, that's a niqab, a woman who wears a full-face veil. It doesn't mean, you know, that we need to go to the point of civil liberties, you know, offensive or anything like that.

But Juan Williams was basically, I think, having a commentary that is very true in America today. And I believe, unfortunately, that NPR short circuited a conversation that we really need to be having.

She seems to be saying that it's almost like the N word thing with blacks--only Muslims can talk that way about other Muslims. It's ironic that another minority can get fired for crossing that line but the story runs deeper (as the panelists reveal later)...it's about 'serving two masters'. At any rate as Muslims keep exploding or opening fire at various intervals in the states as we continue killing them with prejudice overseas, and while sweeping generalizations about all of this are fast becoming thought crimes, it seems we really do need a national conversation here. Surely when imam Rauf pops back up after the election he'll probably be making the same point, albeit while blaming America somehow.

But what about the conversation on race? Williams is black. The NPR moderator posed the question; here's another snippet:

Mr. PRINCE: Well, I think race is always a part of a lot of these discussions. I think it's disingenuous, however, to say that there was a racial element here and not at FOX. I mean, FOX is hardly an exemplar of diversity in terms of its news and so forth.

This from the WaPo editor--answering a question about whether NPR might have Shirley Sherroded their lone black commentator and he immediately diverts to Fox News. Just like a message board.

The professor and the editor provided their takeaways at the end--here's mine: with all these conversations Americans are supposed to be having about controversial issues how about one on the media? Maybe Gwen Ifill from PBS could be the moderator, or wait, maybe a panelist.

Doc Comparison

The New York Times is all over the unauthorized leak of DoD Iraq war documents (most likely by a radical gay soldier upset over DADT), with a front page blitz on the torture, abuse, and civilian death counts. And wow, timed perfectly with the mid-term elections and Bush's book tour!

Funny, the Times sat along the wall like an ugly shy girl at a party when the DoD released the captured documents contained in the Project Harmony database, many of which suggested Saddam had dealings with Islamist terrorist groups (conventional wisdom = impossible) including the Taliban.

Ironically, when the Times finally came to the dance floor they were actually instrumental in getting the site taken offline because of a proposed article based on one of the docs dubbed a 'nuclear primer'. Yes, it's a nutball world.

As to Assausage, it seems almost impossible to believe that the US Government cannot stop this geek from blasting out info that would get an average American jailed or an enemy combatant blown to smithereens. It's almost as if someone in a high place wants this to happen, or the internet is now more dangerous and powerful than the entire US national security apparatus. Either way it's troubling, not so much about the document content but the idea that no government will have control over its own secrets anymore. That might sound great in Utopia but in the real world people will die as a result.

MORE 10/23/10

It appears the documents do not represent our deepest, darkest secrets on Iraq but rather are more a compendium of incident reports. Search for the following figures and you'll come up with a goose egg:

> Rahib Taha ("Dr. Germ", released for unknown reasons)
> Huda Ammash ("Mrs. Anthrax", released for unknown reasons)
> Abu Ibrahim (a little known bomber who was actually the originator of Bojinka in 80s)
> Raghad Hussein (Saddam's daughter, exiled in Jordan and subject of Interpol notices)
> Izzat Ibrahim al Douri (high level Ba'ath Party figure involved in insurgency, still loose)
> Mohammad Yunis (another high level Ba'ath figure involved in insurgency, still loose)
> Tahir Habbush (head of the IIS, still on the lam)
> Abdul Yasin (helped mix the first WTC bomb in 1993 and also still on the loose)

But the point of Wikileaks both here and in the Afghan dump was not to confirm the reasons for going to war or the evil of the enemy, but to confirm the horrors of war itself. And we don't really need a leak for that.

Whose Fault Again?

Local story here about a Baptist Church reaching out to the Muslim community for some interfaith peace, love and understanding..

"The best way to express our support and extend a warm hand of fellowship to our Muslim neighbors here in Memphis was to get together and break bread," said Dr. Billy Bickers of the Prescott Baptist Church.

Maybe that's what Jesus would do. Or maybe He would reflect what another Baptist preacher in Dallas said recently, it's hard to know. We do know that Islam in America is not going anywhere soon, so we need to find a way to coexist. But coexisting isn't a one way street. Is it really helpful for Muslims to react this way:

The Islamic faith has been under attack in recent months...

..the Mid-South Islamic community says it is tired of the discrimination and hateful acts.

"I pay taxes, I vote, I've served in the military, I was born in this country and because I wear a head scarf I'm somehow different? If I take off my head scarf and walk down the street nobody is going to look at me twice,” said American Muslim Maureen Ameen.

Yes, well major Nidal Hasan served in the military and paid his taxes before opening fire and blasting 40 of his fellow soldiers while yelling Allahu Akbar. Just today four Muslims were found guilty in New York for conspiring to blow up a synagogue. The Times Square bomber was recently convicted and sentenced to life--he proclaimed pride in being a terrorist, just like Ramzi Yousef did in 1997. Meanwhile the underwear bomber and others remain on trial or await their day in court. They are all Muslims, killing in the name of Islam.

Interfaith dialogue is imperative but until Muslims start walking out when people like Imam Rauf claim America was partly to blame for 9/11 there will never be any true hope for peace, love and understanding here on our shores. It's only human nature for non-Muslims to wonder if guy walking down the street with the headscarf might explode or open fire out of the blue after almost two decades of attacks in the name of Islam. And the US media and shows like 'the View' need to stop pretending that Islam is the one 'under attack' while ignoring the steady stream of attacks in the name of Islam. Neither America nor American Islam can continue to prosper living outside this reality.

The Politics of Terrorist Trials

Robert Gibbs was hit with a question today in the daily briefing--paraphrasing--"when will the trial for al-Nashiri be conducted?" He gave the same stock answer the families have heard for 10 long years. Ten long years ago today, as a matter of fact. Obama waxed reflective:

“I will never forget meeting with some of the families of the victims of this bombing in February 2009. I am deeply grateful to them for their sacrifice, and their efforts to keep the memory of this tragic event alive in our nation’s conscience.

They probably haven't forgotten, either:

Obama called a meeting of the Cole families and made us feel comfortable that something would be done. Now I see that it was a political stunt and how disingenuous he was on this issue. Supposedly we had a contact person at the White House. Obama told us we would always have an open phone. After the announced decision I tried calling this guy and am not getting any response at all. It seems this administration does not care.

Hmm. According to this story everyone is ready to go:

“We don’t have a date yet” for reviving the charges, the official said. When he and other military officials have asked about the delay, they’ve been told, “The administration wants to wait until after the election to go forward,” the official added.

Today it was announced that lawyers for Major Hasan have asked for a 30 day delay (until after the election). Nobody seems to know much about the trial of Underbomber Abdulmutallab other than he's fired his lawyers and wants to defend himself--usually a sign he wants the opportunity to rant off a diatribe like Little Rock recruiter jihadist Abdulhakim, whose own state trial is also languishing and under a gag order (apparently for everyone except the suspect).

Maybe the Ghailani trial (Embassy bombings) has provided enough negative PR already this close to the mid-terms. But fret not--no matter what happens (guilt, innocence, hung juries) these guys will all remain locked up for life. And their brothers on the battlefield will be killed on site. There will be no stealing of democracy!

Sure, it's troubling if Justice is delaying justice for political reasons. Not surprising, but troubling nonetheless because it shows an apparent disregard for the importance of this fight. But if true it's not entirely clear whether that reluctance would be over the right's reaction to trials in federal court (Nashiri is to be tried in a military tribunal) or the left's anger over all things terrorism and torture in general and their perception that the administration has failed miserably in their responsibility to frogmarch enough Bush criminals.

Most likely it's the latter. Not that Obama wouldn't delight in frogmarching a few Republicans this close to the mid-terms if he could, but when the shoe is on the other foot it sometimes tends to produce a clearer view. Besides, there's always hope.

MORE 10/13/10

Here's an MSNBC article on the Cole by Michael Isikoff rehashing the "Bush ignored Richard Clarke" meme that invariably comes up in leftist circles, the crux being that bin Laden was able to use the non-response to the Cole as a recruiting tool before 9/11.

So let's get this straight. Attacking Muslim lands to strike back after attacks is a recruiting tool for the jihadists. NOT striking back after attacks is a recruiting tool for the jihadists.

While 'stale' might not be the best term to describe the situation after the Bush folks came in it was close--there was no outrage or public cry to revenge the attack outside the national security sector. The public was resting from the election snafu and had still not figured out AQ was at war with the west and what it meant, nor, apparently had the new administration. Imagine for a second had Bush come on TV and announced he was invading Afghanistan in June 2001 due to the Cole attack, and how the left would have reacted.

Siddiqui: HIG Group Interrogation?

We know the German of Afghani descent who purportedly spilled the beans on a Mumbai style terror plot in Europe was taken to Bagram AFB after being caught. But how did he get there? Was he rendered?

Stories are vague about where and how he was captured. Most now say:

Siddiqui, 36, was picked up in Kabul in early July.

The paper of record and spilling top secret info mirrored that account. Yet earlier reports said:

Intelligence and law enforcement authorities in the US and Europe said the threat information is based on the interrogation of a suspected German terrorist allegedly captured on his way to Europe in late summer and now being held at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.

Emphasis added. If he was training in Waziristan then technically Afghanistan would have been "on the way". But that's a darned long walk.

What about the info? As Tom Maguire asks, how did they get it? Did Obama's crack new HIG terror interrogation team (the one as yet formed during the Christmas Day underbomber attempt) kick into gear?

Members of the new interrogation unit will have the authority to travel around the world to talk to suspects and will be trained to handle certain high-interest people, such as al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Linguists and cultural and interrogation specialists will be assigned to the group and will have "some division of responsibility" regarding types of detainees, a senior administration official said. Most of the group's members will work there full time, although they will have part-time support from the FBI.

Interrogators will not necessarily read detainees their rights before questioning, instead making that decision on a case-by-case basis, officials said. That could affect whether some material can be used in a U.S. court of law. The main purpose of the new unit, however, is to glean intelligence, especially about potential terrorist attacks, the officials said.

So was he Mirandized? Martinized? Anything? Where's that old time curiosity? Ya know, that opportunistic duty to point out any contrast between humane interrogation and the torture tactics of Bush, Cheney and the Yoo?

Surely it doesn't take a blogger to figure it out. As made clear by the warnings on European travel an attack may still come at any minute. Chest thumping about new tactics--only to have people die via the same 'thwarted' attack--would be bad form. So when (and if) this blows over there will be plenty of time to herald the new methods (probably a few days before the election in the New York Times and concurrent with the early snippets of Bush's memoirs).

But Axelrahm best be careful, especially if Siddiqui was indeed rendered then later slapped around to any level, which will no doubt come out via some channel eventually. The Andy Worthingtons of the world are always lying in wait to proclaim outrage over our treatment of terrorists, especially those named Siddiqui and our gulag at Bagram, no matter how much support they threw towards the One when he was the One.

Also, now that everyone knows he's in Bagram everyone will also be waiting and wondering when he'll be departing for trial somewhere.

MORE 10/4/10

CNN relays an interview with a family member of Mr. 'Sidiqi' (spelled differently than previous reports and unlike the AQ mistress), who says he's basically one halo short of an angel. The Germans say otherwise, that he's been on their radar since 9/11.

The story did confirm he wasn't technically rendered as in a CIA airplane, although he was evidently grabbed by a bunch of guys who put a black bag over his head. According to a letter sent out he hasn't been tortured yet but he had seen Cheney wandering the halls with a menacing glare. OK, I made that last part up.

GZ Imam Now in Hiding

Wondering where the GZ imam has been lately?

The imam behind the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero is largely avoiding New York City because of security concerns and is receiving protection from the New York Police Department, according to those close to the imam.

Lots of 'crazies' out there, the story goes on to say, which is why they claim he's now in a secure location. Funny, the imam himself recently spoke about radicals after returning from the Middle East:

Now, he said, the "discourse has been, to a certain extent, hijacked by the radicals," making the decision on whether or not to move the mosque, "very difficult and very challenging. "My major concern with moving it is that the headline in the Muslim world will be 'Islam is under attack in America'," he said. "This will strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment."

Radicals here, radicals there, but he makes very little distinction between the two. Who are the radicals over here? Does he consider surviving family members of 9/11 victims as such? Talk show hosts? Average Americans polled and opposed? Who, exactly? Or has he realized that accusing average folks of being radical because they don't like being shaken down with veiled threats about what moving the mosque might cause the real radicals to do was not textbook bridge-building?

Well, we are left to wonder how long the imam will remain in seclusion. Muslim leaders met regarding the mosque this past weekend, without Rauf, and said this:

“We ask that this should be done as soon as possible because time is not our side,” Awad said of Park51. “Because this conversation has went way out of control.”

"Has went"? But OK, they want an expedited schedule despite the conversation being out of control, which sounds bassackwards. Meanwhile so long as the imam remains in hiding he can't very well appear on the number one rated cable commentary show in America and reach all those yahoos in need of educating. Of course, there's no doubt Bill O'Reilly would ask him to explain his comments to Ed Bradley and various audiences as to why America was an accessory to that huge hole in the ground two blocks away from his important project. Maybe that's the real security threat he's hiding from.

If We Can Just Get Past This..

First we have the 60 Minutes thing where imam Rauf calls the US an accessory to 9/11. Then later in Australia he says our killing of Iraqi children through UN sanctions helped fuel the bin Laden we helped to create.

He did so by referencing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

Fast forward to today. Steven Emerson, the Paul Revere of warning about radical Islam in America, has an expose on the former partner of Rauf, a Sufi Mulsim named Faiz Khan. Who's also 9/11 truther:

In an essay on the Alliance's website, he argued that "the prime factor for the success of the criminal mission known as 9/11 did not come from the quarter known as 'militant Islam' although the phenomenon known as 'militant Islamic networks' may have played a partial role, or even a less than partial role - perhaps the role of patsy and scapegoat."

But, since guilt by association is not cool just consider this another question for Bill O'Reilly to ask when he does his Rauf interview. And he will of course--because Bill has the biggest cable reach in the business and therefore can help Mr. Rauf build a huge bridge all across America with exactly the kind of people he wants to reach.

Defining Radical

Imam Rauf was once again in front of the media--the friendly fire media at least--defending his veiled threat that moving his Cordoba Center will cause an 'explosion' of bad will, or maybe literal explosions, across the Islamic world:

RAUF: I have never made a threat. I've never made a threat, never expressed a threat, never -- I've never -- I would never threaten violence ever, because I am a man of peace, dedicated to peace.

We have two audiences. We have the American audience and we have the Muslim audience. And this issue has riveted the attention of the whole Muslim world. And whatever we do and whatever say and how we move and the discourse about it is being watched very, very closely. And if we make the wrong move, it will only expand and strengthen the voice of the radicals and the extremists.

Simple solution--since he's already a State Dept Ambassador to the Moslem world just send him back out on a tour to explain why it was moved (a tidbit of wisdom from the mostly disinterested but better half of the McCloud ranch sitting across the room). He can explain that he originally never thought it would cause problems and was later shocked, shocked at the outcry, and would not have proposed a mosque in such a location had he known it beforehand, and in retrospect cannot erect a facility to build bridges if it's just being built to appease Islamic radicals who might erupt in flame.

But hey, before wasting more taxpayer money it would be nice if he'd just explain why 'Cordoba House' is an appropriate symbol for a Ground Zero Islamic center mosque rabat, since the facility at Cordoba Spain was the westernmost point of Islam's middle ages conquest and represented the first European capital seized.

Of course we're still waiting for an explanation of how Mikey Moore's movie worked its way into one of his lectures when discussing American complicity in 9/11, or where he comes down on the Gaza flotillas and what he thinks about Obama's friend Rashid Khalidi's participation in another vessel called "The Audacity of Hope".

Or how we created bin Laden by helping liberate Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Kuwait. Then further inflamed things by re-liberating Afghanistan and removing the scotch drinking dictator of Babylon. Again, maybe he's saving those replies for his appearance on cable's number one commentary show on cable's number one news network.

Or maybe he considers that network, along with the 9/11 families not in support and a majority of New Yorkers and Americans against his project, as part of the "radicals" exploiting this for the November elections (but certainly not Captain Strawman!) and not worthy of any peace building efforts. It's hard for the average radical American to know based on selected interviews with the likes of Soledad O'Brien and Christiane Amanour.

Blessed are the true peacemakers and it's a hard job, but every good peacemaker has to convince everyone they are truly interested in peace. Dialogue is helpful, such as having the imam participate in a televised panel discussion with real questioners. If he continues to use select mainstream media hamsters with their eyes on helping their favored party maintain power in November (which might include labeling Sarah Palin as an Islamophobe) the only peace bridges will be those between himself and the true radicals.

Loving and Hating the First Amendment

As the proposed Quran burning day draws near and the world's intelligensia are expressing their mock indignation while US flags burn in some quarters, president Obama has called the proposed burning a recruitment bonanza for AQ. Why he didn't preface it with "yet another" is unknown at this point. Meanwhile Interpol, yes Interpol, has pushed this future act to the top of their case list:

Interpol on Thursday issued a global alert to its 188 member countries, warning of a "strong likelihood" of violent attacks if the Quran burning proceeds.

Not just them, but the UN, international dignitaries and other bigwigs have all weighed in with quivered warnings. Doesn't this tell us something about the Muslim world in general? Imam Rauf is now saying he was shocked, shocked that his victory mosque would upset anyone and that he'd move it except for the fact it would be a risk to national security (exploding Muslims around the world). Seems the press is burying the lede.

Meanwhile, as officials warn of KKK style violence here in the states CAIR is on the scene, exploiting this non-event for all it's worth as well:

CAIR has been working with attorneys, and no basis has been found to stop the burnings under the law, he said, but he added that if the plan is going to incite violence, the government should step in.

Hmm, since the Qurans would have to first be lit on fire to actually trigger the violence, how could the government 'step in'? Where is Obama to support the First Amendment?

Meanwhile, local officials are poised to arrest Jones if he starts a fire without a permit. Makes sense--no community wants that bullseye (besides the fact Jones seems a little off) but what if he puts them in a fireplace? What if wraps the Qurans with an American flag before flicking his bic?