Sharyl Attkisson Computer Hack Update

More updates to follow as they become available....

More on Hastings

Remember the tragic death of reporter Michael Hastings last month?  He was killed when his car rammed a tree in the wee hours of the morning in LA traveling at a high rate of speed.  Many speculated on what he was working on and if there was foul play--Hastings had done the Rolling Stone piece on General McCrystal and had made a few enemies in the Obama administration as well as others.

At last check they were waiting on the toxicology report for an exact cause of death.  These toxicology reports always seem to take forever, which is amazing considering how technology has advanced.  Makes one wonder if they must be sent to Antarctica for processing.

Actually, it turns out they should be sent to Canada:

The BC Coroners Service has confirmed the cause of death for Cory Monteith. Post-mortem testing, which included an autopsy and toxicological analysis, found that Mr. Monteith, aged 31, died of a mixed-drug toxicity involving heroin and alcohol.

Several days.  That's all it took for BC officials to test Cory Monteith.  So why does it take over a month in the States?  Are Medical Examiner officials in high profile cases using toxicology report delays to get stories out of the news and tamp down public interest, as seemed to be the case with Breitbart?

Such things lead to conspiracies.  Right now some are making hay with the fact the LA Coroner's office sent Mr. Hastings' remains home in an urn.  Some in his family claim they never authorized a cremation:

Hastings’ friend and confidant SSgt. Joe Biggs disclosed a macabre twist in the award-winning journalist’s death in a suspicious single-car accident. According to SSgt. Biggs, “Michael Hastings’ body was returned to Vermont in an urn.” He further alleged, “Family members did not want Michael’s body cremated.”

Sounds somewhat strange, unless he was burned so badly there wasn't much left.  The same San Diego reporter continues:

Despite the LAPD's categorization of the Hasting fatal accident as a "no (evidence of) foul play,” LAPD continues to ignore FOIA (CPRA in Calif.) requests made by San Diego 6 News for the police report, 9/11 call, autopsy, bomb squad and toxicology reports, or make the Mercedes available for inspection which only fuels conjecture.

The fact that News 6 San Diego FOIA'd the toxicology report despite the Coroner saying it would take weeks indicates they don't believe in these long delays either.  And good grief, our old friend Richard "Boogie to Baghdad" Clarke has even weighed in with a 'car hacking' theory worthy of "Q". 

But whatever.  Let's get back to our never-ending conversation on race.

Strange Story, Strange Picture

Strange story, strange picture...

When asked what the men discussed and why it wasn't on the schedule, the White House released a statement saying, “The three men enjoyed a personal visit in the Oval Office – as they have done on previous occasions when President Bush is Washington.”

The strangeness isn't the fact a president would want to sit down with an ex-president and his ex-governor son, or that the press wasn't told about it (nor have they apparently been told about all such previous visits). The strangeness is that for some reason they have chosen now to release this information.

President Bush 41 has always been a great fan of maintaining the presidential fraternity in an effort to bring national unity, but it's a bit hard to imagine why they would want this released a few days ahead of the Florida primary.   How does this help Romney?  Unless the Bushes were ambushed. 

MORE  1/28/12

Since it's unlikely the photo release was an ambush the question becomes why.  Why would Bush 41 and Jeb want a nice friendly Oval Office shot with the enemy released days before an important primary?   It's most likely a message to the field, but not exactly sure what the message is, considering (as Politico said) that Obama just blamed Dubya for the food stamp increase and economic collapse.  

Not a Contrail

Drudge is tipping another mystery streak, this time in New York City last evening around sunset...

Some so-called expert called it a contrail but it couldn't be. One, contrails do not appear at low altitude so if it's a contrail the object was actually hundreds of miles away at the altitudes normally conducive to contrails. Since this was fall at sunset the 'Harvest Moon' refraction effect could be coming into play here, making a distant object appear closer, but if this object is actually at 35,000 well away from NYC it's too large and moving too fast.

Weather observations from LaGuardia Airport during the event:

KLGA 110051Z 35009KT 10SM FEW150 SCT250 10/M01 A3015 RMK AO2 SLP211 T01001011
KLGA 102351Z 36011G18KT 10SM FEW150 SCT250 11/M01 A3014 RMK AO2 SLP206 T01061011 10144 20106 51019
KLGA 102251Z 36009KT 10SM FEW150 BKN250 11/M01 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP201 T01111006
KLGA 102151Z COR 36012KT 10SM FEW150 BKN250 12/00 A3010 RMK AO2 SLP193 T01170000
KLGA 102051Z 35011G20KT 10SM FEW080 SCT140 BKN250 13/01 A3008 RMK AO2 SLP187 T01330006 53014

Clear, with only a few clouds above 8000 feet. Not likely a weather event. So on with the requisite speculation..

1. Astronomical phenomena? It looks somewhat like a "fireball meteor" sometimes seen during meteor showers. Thing is, they normally appear to be coming downward at a slight angle, while this object is maintaining its altitude and moving slower. But with refraction in play it's possible.

2. Aircraft? Only possible if the object is scores of miles away from New York, up at the contrail-producing altitudes. The 'Harvest Moon' effect could help this, but if it was an aircraft contrail it definitely not anything in the immediate NY area.

As with California, the FAA should be able to study their tapes and determine what was moving in that approximate location at that time, assuming they could approximate its location. Which is why FAA tapes might be inconclusive.

3. Cruise Missile? It was certainly moving along like they do. But who fired it? The New Confederacy? Mexico? Hugo Chavez?

4. Hoax? It did come only two days after the California 'mystery missile' so this must be considered. Ironically, both were seen and filmed by traffic helicopters but short of media hanky panky this kind of hoax would be a very elaborate (and kind of scary, if possible).

5. Pelosi, an alien space craft, a new Air Force vehicle or Santa Claus testing a new sleigh. Make up your own explanations here.

Pretty weird. A celestial object makes some sense--made to appear larger due to refraction (and if it was a long way off it would appear to be moving slower)--but I'm open to anything on this one.. except a contrail, which only leads to survey reactions like this.

SPEAKING OF WEIRD THINGS IN THE SKY... 11/11/10

The concept of the existence of such a video and what it would mean is fascinating. Keep in mind that on 9/11 Katie Couric, then with NBC News, twice mentioned that 800 had been "bombed". That clip was formerly available on You Tube then spiked; was on Google Videos then also spiked. They tried to put it here, and yep, spiked.

Missile or Contrail?

Wow, a lot of news organizations better hope it was a missile. Looked like a missile to me too, but further investigation is leaving high doubt. So, breaking it down...

A. It was a missile, and it was ...

1. Launched by mistake. This would be the most frightening outcome, as if some launch officer put his elbow on the ignite button and blamo.

2. Launched purposely to show strength. This is the most ridiculous outcome of all since everybody knows we can launch submarine-borne missiles. "Hey look, we can still kick ass" is pretty weak and utterly un-Obama. If he didn't order it that would be worse.

3. The Chinese or Russians launched to show everyone they can. Maybe upset about the dollar devaluation and sending the O a greeting card (aimed in his direction after all) to show their dissatisfaction. This actually makes more sense than the above two scenarios. But damn, 35 miles offshore? Pretty bold. But what could we do, attack Beijing?

B. It was not a missile, it was...

1. An airplane. Makes the most sense. Besides, FAA could prove this rather easily by looking at radar tapes and noticing anything leaving a primary target in that area coming from the horizon as well as all the overhead traffic around that location.

2. "Balloon Boy at 40, 000, the sequel".

My personal guess-- an airplane, probably a large wide body like A380 or B747, coming from the west towards the viewer (suffering from parallax effect). At least I hope so.

And if so that's a big fat strike two for the big media over the past week, some of whom also bought off on the 200 million a day India trip. One would expect that kind of weak fact-checking from bloggers but c'mon, these are supposed to be professionals... Unless they are covering up for the real reason (cue the heavy metal soundtrack and evil laugh..).

MORE 11/9/10

Here's another report saying the FAA did not find any fast-moving primary targets on their radar (a primary target is one that is not in contact with controllers, when in contact they light up a data block of information and are brighter).

One might think that if a missile was launched right off the coast of Catalina Island at least a few pilots would have noticed and advised ATC but none did according to reports, which is a bit odd since the videos themselves show aircraft flying past in the foreground. Granted, the helicopter crew first reported it and they are pilots, but they were low and not off the coast. Somebody should have seen this thing rise up off the ocean. We'll see if anyone comes forward.

In the TWA 800 crash one of the primary witnesses was a military helicopter pilot flying near shore who claimed to have seen a flare rise from the horizon then arc back east before exploding near the plane (he called it ordnance). Many other witnesses on the ground claimed to have seen it rise off the water and supposedly there was even amateur video footage of such aired for about 6 hours on some NBC stations that showed it (legend has it the FBI reportedly came and confiscated it). The FAA radar tapes showed some fast-moving objects nearby.

In other words, to this day there remains much more verification that something rose off the surface in that event as compared to this one. Decide for yourself if that says more about politics, the media or eyewitness accounts in general.

MORE 11/10/10

ABC just can't let go of this story, running it full top position on their web site as of this writing at 9:40 am CST. Here's a gem:

The contrail did not appear on the Federal Aviation Authority's radar replays.

That would be a first, since air traffic radars have never shown clouds or contrails before.

This story could have easily been put to rest had the initial video been longer than a few snippets. In other words, if some amateur videographer (or maybe a security camera pointed west and tilted upwards) had captured the entire event it would have been conclusive as to whether the object was moving towards or away from the coast. Towards the coast and it's clearly an airplane, with the viewer perhaps seeing a 75-100 mile contrail fanning out in the upper breeze. Away from the coast and it has to be moving up, ergo, a mystery missile.

Surely Keith Olbermann will be pointing out the hilarity of all this tonight, after all Glenn Beck isn't buying the airplane (cough swamp gas weather balloon) explanation. Of course he'd have to accuse his own network of balloon boy coverage.

Hollywoodward Strikes Again

What would a Bob Woodward book be without bombshells...

Mr. Biden called Mr. Holbrooke “the most egotistical bastard I’ve ever met.” A variety of administration officials expressed scorn for James L. Jones, the retired Marine general who is national security adviser, while he referred to some of the president’s other aides as “the water bugs” or “the Politburo.”

Say one thing for Biden, he never lets judgment or facts get in the way of a good ole emotional sound bite. But man alive, it sounds just as messy as the Bush White House. It also sounds like Obama is a bit distracted by fighting wars and defending America and chasing down bin Laden and such stuff..

Even after he agreed to send another 30,000 troops last winter, the Pentagon asked for another 4,500 “enablers” to support them. The president lost his poise, according to the book. “I’m done doing this!” he erupted.

..as in a lot of political calculations being inferred where national security should predominate. Of course it might just be Woodward leaving that initial impression to sell books. He didn't talk about any slam dunks this time--apparently the president can't jump. But he also quotes Obama as telling Lindsay Graham he had to declare an Afghan timeline for withdrawal in 2011 or risk losing the Democratic party, presumably meaning losing reelection in 2012. Will anyone ask Gibbs to explain this?

And in that vein it'll be interesting to see how a Woodward book goes over in the age of O with all the Dem-friendly journalists. As to the revelation about the CIA's Afghan-staffed pursuit teams (CTPT) it sounds like the culmination of the feckless squads formed during Clinton's second term who were supposed to go after bin Laden but failed. Speaking of books, Steven Coll wrote about them extensively in his book "Ghost Wars", which BTW is a pretty fair assessment of the GWoT despite his avoidance of a few crucial players like Ali Mohammed or anyone remotely involved with Iraq.

MORE 9/22/10

Woodward's employer has a feature on the book today including more gossipy snippets of backbiting and infighting, including a few details from 'top secret' meetings. But it's useful to remember--most of what they told Woodward was relayed for a reason. Disclosing classified information is a crime and several quips are attributed to specific persons..

A new capability developed by the National Security Agency has dramatically increased the speed at which intercepted communications can be turned around into useful information for intelligence analysts and covert operators. "They talk, we listen. They move, we observe. Given the opportunity, we react operationally," then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell explained to Obama at a briefing two days after he was elected president.

Hear that, AQ? There was also the requisite "Pakistan is not our BFF" gossip, something everyone already knows and previously confirmed by Wikileaks. The WaPo article paints Obama as the decisive leader, staring down the military instead of being bowled over by them. The biggest bombshell is probably Obama's immediate desire for a way out of the AfPak theater after campaigning that it was the 'central front' in the GWoT, but again, who didn't know he was playing politics with the war as a way to beat McCain by running against Bush?

CONTEXT 9/23/10

A couple of other comments excerpted are making more news, mainly the "we're stronger after 9/11" and "America can absorb another terrorist attack". On the latter, John Dickerson echoes my feelings on the comment:

This led the president to talk about the need to prioritize. Objectively, the president said, you would want to be able to stop every attack, but a president has to prioritize. So what does the president put at the top of the danger list? A nuclear weapon or a weapon of mass destruction. Why? Because—and here's where the quote in question comes in—as bad as 9/11 was, the United States was not crippled. A nuclear attack or weapon of mass destruction, however, would be a "game changer," to use a popular cliché.

Again, this points out the communication disconnect present in the White House right now. Basically, we have a college professor as the Commander-in-Chief, and he thinks and talks like a college professor. He blurts out theory as if speaking to a class, not America.

Everyone should know that a president cannot expect to stop all attacks. And everyone should know that an NBC attack has to be priority one for any president because no, America may NOT survive one (especially in our precarious financial situation). Heck, the president might not survive one if planted in Washington. Once again he blew the mass communication aspect on relaying his thoughts.

As to the former (about being stronger after 9/11) this one's a head-scratcher and likely was uttered out of a need to suggest the American people survived, etc. But it's strange he would say America got stronger after years of bashing Bush on, well, just about everything.