Why so prickly?

Watch State Dept spokesbuffy Marie Harf react to a simple question today about the Middle East..



Nothing to see move along!    

Of course she immediately knew the implication of a question about Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia meeting together to discuss an alliance without United States involvement--Iran.  They seem very sensitive about this.

If you want to know what's actually important right now look at what the Obama-approved media isn't harping on:  Iran is closing in on a deal that would almost surely allow them to keep their nuclear program, a deal which if signed would make it harder for Israel to take them out in a bombing raid, and not only due to possible threats such as this, but just based on being called an international pariah and sanctioned by the UN.

At the same time Iran has 1) helped Bashar Assad remain in power (the guy whose days were once said to be "numbered" by the administration),  2) almost certainly helped the Houthi rebels take over Yemen, which just normalized air traffic between San'a and Tehran, 3) continued to fund Hizballah and HAMAS while now providing military assistance via the IRGC to the Iraqi Army in their offensive to retake Tikrit.  It's as if we're now BFF with the Iranians. At what point do they get removed from the list of state-sponsors of terrorism?

While doing all of this they've also managed to blow up a mock US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf while burning a figure of the president in effigy (along with their usual 'death to America' chants).  More importantly they've managed to scare Netanyahu into flying to Washington to give a speech about the dangers of all of this.

Yet despite all the red flashing lights the American people largely couldn't give two hoots. They are severely war weary, which Obama knows, which is why Netanyahu decided to come and speak, which is why the Obama cabinet was dispatched out of town for the Bibi speech, with an even bigger middle finger message sent by John Kerry, who will be talking to the Iranians the very same day.  Netanyahu is almost getting the Tea Party treatment (the real terrorists).  Hey LA Times--let's see that Rashid Khalidi video, how about it?

So yeah, this administration rilly, rilly wants a nuke deal with Iran.  Seemingly at almost any price.  Yes, we all realize these things are too nuanced for dunce conservative bloggers to understand; that when the dust settles Iran will have been bitch-slapped into lowered sanctions while retaining their nuclear program.  To most people this will sound like paying sticker price for a car but to our super genius negotiators and the press it will be the biggest peace deal in our time, just in time for Hillary.

Of course, if Iran keeps their program and gets lowered sanctions while Israel's hands are tied, and we allow Tehran to project its image all over the Middle East, including taking over Iraq, Syria and Yemen, well, that unconseqential non-story about Sunnis that Marie Harf tried to dismiss today will become front page news.

TAKE THE DEAL, IT'LL BE GREAT!

Obama talked to Reuters today and telegraphed his willingness to make an Iran nuke deal, practically begging the Iranians to do it.



He assured Americans that after any deal that 'inspectors' will be able to keep them honest, even though inspectors are saying Iran is not being honest right now.  And it's not like international inspections weren't a joke in Iraq and Libya. 

So let's think about this.  How can the administration NOT end up with a deal, after two busted self-imposed deadlines and after throwing a flag on Bibi for interference?  Obama is on record of saying he has a firm commitment that he will do everything possible to keep Tehran from going nukular, but everybody including the Iranians knows this does not include a military option. It just doesn't.  Even if Obama wanted it the American peeps would balk.  He has less than two years left and he's not about to open a can whoop-anything on anyone.

So, lacking a deal and no military option he'd have no choice but to re-impose sanctions.  Iran would go back to using their proxies to destabilize the region, a region where they now exert even more influence, including over Iraq and their oil.  Obama would not take much of an immediate political hit for a failed deal followed by re-imposing sanctions because the mainstream media would cover his backside, but in the real world the Ayatollahs would emerge with their nuclear weapons program, more regional control, and a bigger swarth than ever before.

Netanyahu, assuming he's still in power, would almost surely have to attempt to take out the nukes before Obama's term expires, which could get a little messy.  But even if Bibi doesn't win and an Israeli dove lap-dog PM gets elected, there's the specter of that Sunni alliance Marie Harf was trying to downplay today and the resultant nuclear arms race it could produce.  Obama desperately needs a deal to make it to January 2017.  A deal kicks the can but it conceivably holds off the Israelis, the Sunnis, and the Republicans.   

Losing Yemen

Still some confusion over how the Obama administration pulled out of our embassy in Yemen a few days ago.  There was initial reporting by Fox and others that authorities at the airport in Sana'a requested our embassy Marines hand over their personal weapons to the terrorists before boarding aircraft out of the country (embassy vehicles were seized upon departure).

Obviously the symbolism of this did not sit well in all quarters. Everything we do on the world stage sends a message, so what message does it send to have a terror group disarming our Marines?

But the early accounts have been challenged.  State spokesgal Jen Psaki tried to beat back the flames today, reading the Marine Corps' explanation, calling the earlier reporting 'false', which promoted this exchange with reporters (for some reason C-SPAN would not allow embedding).

Notice at the end of the clip she was asked who was in authority at the airport and she passed the question without taking a breath.  That matters to this story.    

AP's Matt Lee wasn't satisfied with Psaki's initial answer and tried again.   Obviously she wasn't going to give away precise details on how we extricate personnel from embassies in hostile territory, but she opened the door by saying it "didn't go according to plan".

So, the Marines say the 'advanced plan' was to go to the airport and destroy the personal weapons, presumably as a condition of flying out.  Psaki wouldn't elaborate but she admitted the operation didn't come off as planned.  Why not?  She wouldn't say.   National security and such.

Nobody bothered to ask whether the plan might have been to have air assets come in and remove the embassy personnel and equipment and fly everything to the waiting ships offshore.  Admiral Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, could have perhaps shed some light on this but alas, there has been no Pentagon briefing the past two days.

So questions remain.  Does this set precedent?  Do we always make these kinds of deals abandoning our facilities?  Who made the actual call to disarm at the airport and why?  Or was it ad-hoc?  Why did the Army and CNN make it sound like our departure was ignominious if it wasn't?  Was any of the planning, either ahead of time or perhaps at the airport, done through negotiations with the Houthis that CNN reported yesterday control the airport and obviously control the capital?  Would this amount to negotiating with terrorists?  Does leaving our guns scattered on the tarmac amount to giving them concessions, which the administration claims we never do?  

Or are the Houthis not actually terrorists, but like the Taliban better classified as "armed insurgents" despite their marching through the streets echoing the Tehran chant? 


All of these questions need to be answered to determine the truth, but the symbolism will be clear to the street--our Marines were forced out of town and made to give up their weapons in the process, yet another sign of weakness on the international stage.  Bin Laden once called America a "paper tiger", which eventually culminated in 9/11.  Then Bush came in and said "bring it on".  Obama seems to be sending signals everywhere that he'll sue for peace at just about any cost.   After all, we did the Crusades. 

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Not that it has come up yet, but who cares whether the Paris murdering jihadi-thugs were lone wolves or official members of an AQ cell?   Their actions are inseparable, all done in the name of Islam.

Al-Sisi just spoke about all of this the other day.  His words were largely ignored in the West.  And he's probably rising with a bullet on AQ's Inspire Hit Parade as we speak.

In the meantime it's nice to see the peeps across Europe finally assembling in the streets to offer statements of defiance towards this murderous intolerant ideology...

 

Too bad our own leader has repeatedly equivocated when it counted as to taking these kinds of stands. We'll see if Hollande does likewise in the next few days. 



(The last sentence in that clip is strange considering this).  

Speaking of AQ terrorists and lists, Adnan el-Shukrijumah is still on the State Department's Rewards for Justice and the FBI's most-wanted terrorist lists, this despite the Taliban and others proclaiming otherwise.  Pretty good accomplishment for a dead guy (he's now eligible to vote in Memphis and Chicago!). Why won't the administration confirm his death? Why will nobody ask them? 

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.  

Aviation Update

Of course the big news today is not Syria possibly crossing the red line..again...after a negotiated settlement (and Carney effectively saying 'big deal').  No, the BIG story is the 16 year old kid who embarrassed the San Jose, California airport authority/security by hoping the fence and stowing away on a Hawaiian Airlines wheel well and surviving the flight to Maui.  Allegedly..

The teen, who hasn't been named, is believed to have jumped a fence at the San Jose Airport and settled into the Hawaiian Airlines jetliner's unpressurized wheel-well, unnoticed by airport security.

Authorities said the teen told them that he passed out after the Maui-bound plane took off, and somehow survived, despite freezing temperatures and a lack of oxygen -- a feat that has experts puzzled.

Crew members found him wandering the tarmac in Maui without identification. He was taken into custody and examined by a doctor who found no injuries. At this time, the teen isn't facing federal charges, Simon said.

First, not sure why they wouldn't at least pretend to charge him to discourage copycat activity. They could back down later. Second, guys like Captain John Nance are rightfully scratching their heads because everyone assumed that if a body is exposed to limited oxygen and temperatures below zero for hours on end they should be dead.  Is this one of those things we thought we knew, but didn't?  Maybe the kid didn't die because he didn't know he was supposed to die.

Third, maybe it's not as cold in the wheel well of a commercial jet once the gear retracts as people think. We keep hearing -40, -60....one report even said temperatures of -80 at 39,000 feet (which is bordering on Day After Tomorrow lunacy) but simple logic would say the inner part of the sealed wing does not get nearly that cold, especially after the heated tires retract up into that slot. Still, the limited oxygen combined with say temperatures below zero F (conservative estimate) should make it hard for a body to survive.

Fourth, the media has told everyone over and over that the passengers on MH370 would have died within a few minutes after the flight reached 39,000 ft with cabin pressure removed. Maybe that's not true.

Fifth, maybe this story is complete poppycock.  But if it is, how did the kid get to Hawaii?

 _____

The stowaway kid story is interesting, but it comes just as two other somewhat strange aviation events have happened over the last several days.  Taken apart they are not much, taken as a whole maybe something else.  On Friday one made national news:

"Why did it take so long? What was the real holdup here? What were they really looking for?" asked Jace Booher, according to CNN affiliate KDVR. A law enforcement official told CNN that a bomb threat found written on a note prompted the security screening after the plane landed at Denver International Airport.

Just a day earlier a Southwest jet destined for Indianapolis made an emergency landing in a similar fashion:

An Indianapolis airport spokesman says a Southwest Airlines flight has safely made an emergency landing after the airline received some kind of threat. Spokesman Carlo Bertolini says Southwest Flight 362 requested the emergency landing and landed without incident Wednesday afternoon at Indianapolis International Airport.

The flight with 138 passengers and a crew of five aboard originated in Baltimore and was headed to Indianapolis already. The emergency landing means the flight was met with emergency vehicles.

There seems to be no follow up report on the actual threat.  The aircraft was checked, including all the baggage, as if they might have also been looking for a bomb.  Apparently two false alarms, two days apart.  

But these stories come on the heels of a weird release of a video this past Wednesday showing dancing jihadists in Yemen parading around out in the open threatening America, including their elusive AQAP supreme leader Al-Wuhayshi.   Keep in mind this group isn't like the Syrian or Iraqi branches of AQ that Obama doesn't seem to care about, this is the aviation branch of AQ, home of bombmaker al-Asiri, whom we have been targeting viciously over the past few days.  For all anyone knows these domestic stories have been dry runs.

So, who is it?

Odd, but with a purpose:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Stumped at the moment, but it's Monday.   

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

Aviation Update

A couple of sensational stories are making news and are worth exploring a bit.

One, the would-be white jihadist in Wichita.  According to CNN:

Loewen, who became the subject of a federal investigation early this summer, hoped to commit an "act of violent jihad against the United States" and spent months studying the airport's layout, photographing airport access points, researching flight schedules and assisting in the acquisition of car bomb components, Grissom said.

Not much elaboration there other than 'an act of violent jihad', which should explain itself. CNN goes on to list the charges:

Loewen is charged with one count of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, one count of attempting to damage property by means of an explosive and one count of attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Officials did not answer questions or elaborate on the third charge during a Friday news conference.

The third charge, "provide(ing) material support" to a terror group, doesn't really seem to comport with the authorities calling him a "lone wolf". So, we must venture over to "Faux News" for more:

The complaint says an undercover FBI employee told Loewen about a recent trip overseas and a meeting with members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This agent told Loewen that "brothers" were interested in his airport access, and asked if he'd be willing to plant "some type of device," the complaint said. Loewen allegedly responded, "Am I interested? Yes. I still need time to think about it, but I can't imagine anything short of arrest stopping me."

The U.S. citizen allegedly wrote to the FBI agent that he was inspired by Usama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki.

Interesting that none of this was available on the CNN story but oh well, maybe they believed that business about AQ being on the run.  But let's cut to the chase here.  From all initial stories this guy indeed sounds like a lone nutcake someone brought to the attention of the Feds, who then set him up for a sting op, which occurred today.  He wasn't communicating with terrorists nor did he visit Arabia, he's just a lone dope duped by the Feds.

Some may use this to generate more conspiracies about the Feds trumping up events to justify the NSA's eavesdropping program (especially if it turns out to be part of the investigation) but such is to diminish the idiots out there who have a legitimate crush on the bin Laden wing of Islam and whose conversion involves visions of spectacular death of American innocents.  This same violent aspect will undoubtedly be downplayed by people who will be using the Colorado school shooting to suggest more gun bans.  Such is America 2013.  

UPDATE  12/14/13 

This story in the Wichita Eagle is very informative as to the days and months leading up to Friday's arrest.  The FBI affidavit suggests they became aware of Loewen's jihadi desires via his postings on a jihad website, using an undercover FBI agent to start communicating with him, which eventually led to the operation.

The story illustrates two things--1) the bush-league nature of Loewen's efforts to wage war.  Anyone in this day and age should realize they are being monitored while online.  Most probably the real dangerous jihadies have found other ways to communicate by now.  And 2) the derangement and commitment available to a real jihadist should they have found Loewen before the FBI did.  He fits the profile of the typical suicide bomber and although a lone kook, this event shouldn't be trivialized.     


----

Meanwhile CNN and several other networks made a point to mention the 'birther' aspect of the tragic death of the Hawaiian Director of Health Loretta Fuddy, who certified the legitimacy of Obama's released long form birth certificate back during the Trump birther trump in 2011.

They were basically reporting about the birther aspect and conspiracies before the tinfoil hatters even realized what was happening.   No doubt some in our mainstream media welcome the conspiracy theories as a way to deflect away from the health care fiasco while also piling extra dung on the Tea Party.    

So, what about the incident itself?  It was a short over-water flight from one coastal Hawaiian airport to Honolulu via a single engine Cessna Caravan 208, which holds about 10 passengers and a pilot.  Nine were on board--they all survived impact but only one died while awaiting rescue, Ms. Fuddy.  One survivor, a man over 70 years old, swam to shore while the others were picked up by police/Coast Guard helicopter rescue.

There seems to be some confusion about what happened after the aircraft ditched in the ocean. Here's the LA Times, playing up the conspiracy aspect headline:

The eight other people on the plane, including the pilot, were rescued, but one "person remained in the fuselage of the plane," Honolulu Fire Capt. Terry Seelig told KHON-TV. "It's always a different situation when you're not able to get everybody out."

Hey LA Times, if you don't want conspiracies about Obama maybe you shouldn't hold onto videos of him hobnobbing with Bill Ayers and Palestinian radicals before national elections.  Sorry, digression.  Notice the Times is saying there was one person still inside the aircraft, hinting that this person was the one who didn't survive.  But that's completely bizarre, because here's the AP from late yesterday:

"He recounted how he said he helped Loretta into her life jacket and he held her hand for some time," the priest said. "They were all floating together and she let go and there was no response from her."

Later today they updated it to provide more about the swimmer:

"Everyone was real quiet. We hit (the water) and it was all about getting the belts off," he said, describing how everyone started putting on life jackets and remained on the plane until it seemed to start sinking. "There wasn't panic or anything. It was very orderly. It wasn't like any of the movies or the TV shows."

Bobbing in the water, Hollstein noticed the pilot and seven other passengers seemed fine. "I didn't want to sit out there bobbing, so I figured I'd take a shot at going to the shoreline."

So he's basically saying everybody got out as the plane began sinking, saying he saw the 'seven' other passengers. This same guy later expressed surprise that Fuddy had died, saying:

"She was doing fine out of the airplane," Hollstein said. "Her assistant was really watching her. He was taking care of her."

Absolute proof everybody got out, at least according to this witness.   But wait--the Honolulu paper had a different version:

The Rev. Pat Killilea, pastor of St. Francis Church at Kalaupapa, said he didn't see the plane hit the water, but watched rescue operations from Kalaupapa's airport where the survivors were taken. Killilea said the pilot swam to shore to get help for the passengers floating offshore.

"He (pilot) had been able to get the passengers out of the plane wearing their life vests. However, once in the water they were beginning to drift apart and so he decide to swim to shore to get help," Killilea said this morning in a phone interview. He added, "There was blood on his (pilot's) chest when he arrived at the airport."

Hmm, so a reverend is telling a different story than one of the survivors, a story full of graphic detail including evidence of injury despite swimming ashore.  Note to the LA Times again--when you quote a Honolulu fire department official as emphatically saying someone was still in the aircraft when the aircraft was submerged by the time the rescuers arrived, and when a reverend contradicts later reports from the AP about the identity of the pilot, that tends to fuel conspiracies.

Yes, confusion and misinformation often reign after air disasters but usually officials don't get that specific.  Not to say this isn't all shoddy reporting, so with that in mind it's a little hasty to talk about any conspiracies.  Bizarre things happen in life every day, and certainly Ms. Fuddy seems an unlikely target for a black ops hit squad (no offense intended) as she seemed a team player, recently working to enact Obamacare on the Islands.

The autopsy should reveal the exact cause of death and will help nail this down.  It would also help if the NTSB could retrieve the wreckage from the ocean floor to study the engine, which should be largely intact, but they have said they probably won't be attempting it. Stay tuned, as they say.

UPDATE   12/17/13

The NTSB has decided that maybe they will try to salvage the aircraft after all.  They claim to have spotted it via helicopter submerged about 500 yards offshore.   Meanwhile the autopsy was completed Friday the 13th but has not been publicly released.   Maybe it has been privately released and maybe it's now safe to bring up the wreckage and find out what actually happened.   

Investigation Update

***Long post, executive summary below!***

Ron Machen, the US Attorney who became famous for pulling 40 AP phone lines in the investigation of the Yemeni spy leak while also going after Fox's James Rosen in a North Korean leak by classifying him as a "co-conspirator", has announced a bust in the Yemen leak case:

Donald Sachtleben, a 55-year-old from Carmel, Ind., was an FBI agent for 25 years and worked on major cases, including the Oklahoma City bombing and the hunt for the Unabomber. According to paperwork filed in federal court, Sachtleben provided the national security information to the AP just nine days before he was arrested on the child porn charges, in a separate investigation.

Here's the charge sheet. Notice there is only a disclosure to the AP reporter on the existence of a bomb, which occurred via telephone on May 2, 2012.  He did not give up the existence of an agent on the 'inside', nor did the AP story, which first appeared on May 7 (after being cleared by the Obama administration after a five day delay, likely to allow us to drone al-Quso, one of the wanted USS Cole bombers).  Eric Holder has called this leak one of the worst ever in the history of the United States, which begs the question of why this man is getting more time for child porn than for leaking such a dangerous secret.

To set some backstory,  once the AP story was published John Brennan, at the time an intelligence advisor to the president, called a telecon for a bunch of talking head generals and former spies to coordinate messaging before they went on TV to discuss the AP story. Why?  Because he claims that they had to push back on the idea that the AP story made earlier stories saying there were no credible threats of any attacks during the one year anniversary of the bin Laden takedown look like fables, so they had to push back.

Here's Brennan explaining it during his confirmation hearing:



While it's true the Obama folks were not talking about credible threats they were talking about possible threats--mainly due to the reemergence of AQAP bombmaker Ibrahim al-Asiri. Here's one such story that appeared on April 29th, 2012, before the leak:

While the intelligence community sees no credible or specific threat related to the one-year anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death, counterterrorism officials remain anxious about the Yemen group plotting attacks and aren't taking any chances.

Even Brennan himself had been building up the threat from AQAP in the weeks prior.  While it's feasible to think that once the story got out it might make Brennan and his boss look like liars the bottom line is whether that political hit was worse than losing a valued asset inside the terror group.

In other words, the leak was bad (and it didn't come from an Obama insider as speculated) but the decision to burn the agent DID come from the Obama administration.  Senator Coats even asked Brennan if divulging that information, ie, we have inside control, itself amounted to a leak, to which Brennan replied that it's not a leak if it has been declassified (which means POTUS wanted it out there).

But there's potentially more to this story.
 
For instance, was this lone wolf contractor AP's only source or did they cross check his info with other sources before going to get confirmation from the White House? From the charge sheet, here's an explanation of what the reporter did after hearing from Mr. Sachtleben about a bomb in custody:

Approximately two and-a-half hours later, Reporter A and another reporter from Reporter A's news organization contacted multiple United States Government officials and said that they knew the following facts:

So there were two reporters (Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman).  The charge sheet only mentions 'Reporter A' communicating with Sachtelben.  AP told someone at the White House they knew there was a bomb and FBI was analyzing it, but didn't know for sure whether it came from AQAP or not.  Interestingly enough, in an earlier conversation with Sachtleben (April 30) Reporter A speculated in a text message that the FBI might have a bomb. This would be BEFORE Mr. Sachtleben had confirmed one:

...SACHTLEBEN and Reporter A exchanged text messages about al-Asiri and Reporter A's speculation about the FBI's recovery of a surgically implanted body bomb (also known as a "cavity bomb").

It goes on to say it wasn't the bomb recovered from the airplane plot and uses paragraph 7 to suggest that ABC's World News Tonight had set up the mention of cavity bombs, leading readers to believe that's where Reporter A got his curiosity, but this begs the question of why the AP reporter would be asking about a "recovered" bomb, which was not mentioned by ABC.  Had Reporter A been talking with other people and hearing things, then trying to get Sachtleben to confirm?

Indeed, the text message string shows the initial question asked about a recovered cavity bomb, followed by a vague comic reply by Sachtleben, then "not totally sure though" back from the AP guy. One normally doesn't say 'not totally sure' unless they've already heard something.

Yes, it could be a way to fish for information by making it appear he'd heard something, but Mr. Sachtelben surely doesn't seem to know as he says he thinks a 10am news conference by the FBI might be about the bomb.  When the press conference turned out to be about the Occupy Wall St bridge terrorists in Cleveland Sachtleben texts back that he 'got that one wrong' but that there still might be something up and he would get back.  So it sounds like he was trying to be a good source and confirm what the AP reporter had asked.  His trip to the FBI lab was previously scheduled, so he wasn't going there on an intel mission. 
   
Since no reputable reporter would go to press with only one source it's unlikely they would take a sole-sourced story to the White House for confirmation.  The White House could simply deny it.  The text says after Sachtleben got off the phone the two AP reporters were calling around to administration and/or government officials, telling them what they knew.  Or were they trying to get confirmation?  The charge sheet makes it sound like they were telling the White House they knew something and were going to report. Consider this line from the AP story eventually released:

The would-be suicide bomber, based in Yemen, had not yet picked a target or bought a plane ticket when the CIA stepped in and seized the bomb, officials said. It's not immediately clear what happened to the alleged bomber.

White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said President Barack Obama learned about the plot in April and was assured the device posed no threat to the public.

Funny, the charge sheet says the bomb plot was 'disrupted', with the bomb for a 'US bound airliner'. But notice the rest--the White House added information to their story via a spokeswoman.  And when you tell reporters the bomb was 'no threat to the public' and that the 'CIA stepped in' and got it without any further clarification that only leads to more questions, questions the administration knew would still need to be answered.  One might ask whether the White House added the information when initially confronted or later.

We're left to wonder whether the AP had other sources, whether anyone in the White House saw fit to add to the AP's story and if so, when, and whether the asset really needed to be burned.  The irony here is that Machen later dragnetted the AP's phone lines without notification, which smacks of punishment.  Yes, right, nobody will care about any of it.

MORE  9/24/13

The indispensable Tom Maguire looks at the story and sees a few more questions:

So in the world being presented by the Justice Department and the Times, government officials became aware of an important leak when reporters began calling on May 2 2012 but only tracked the initial leak back to Schachtleben a year later.

But in the world I have been reading about lately the NSA has pretty much real-time access to all sorts of phone record metadata. So in a slightly different world from the one described by the Times, worried intelligence officials found out almost immediately who the AP reporter had recently spoken with that might have compromised the Yemen probe (which involved British and Saudi intelligence in an operation that was ongoing as of May 2, so the US leak was a potential international embarrassment).

And the next day the improbable kiddie porn raid shuts the guy up. Seriously - a guy with 25 years with the FBI was trading kiddie porn under the crafty account of "pedodave69@yahoo.com"? Hide in plain sight has been done.

In other words, the NSA could have potentially known immediately whose phone line connected with Apuzzo or Goldman at AP, perhaps by later in the day of May 2 when it became known the bomb story had been leaked, but since it was a domestic call they couldn't admit they knew.  The charge sheet makes it clear they got the electronic data off Sachtleben's computer (ie, it didn't come from the NSA).  That leaves the question of why it took so long to finally bust the guy, but obvious answers might be 'the election' or 'had to make it look good', or 'we had to enact punishment on the AP for going to press before we could make the announcement on May 8'.  But other possibilities are possible.  

In early reports Mr. Sachtleben seems overly contrite and apologetic for his crimes. That may be heartfelt, let's hope so, but with all the coincidences and questions left dangling it may be something else.  Again, will anyone care?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  9/24/13

This is a long and wordy post that contains a lot of material that must be followed closely, so for those with little time or patience here's an executive summary:

The FBI had the computer and phone of the AP leaker a week after he leaked.  They had the PC due to a separate investigation into child porn, but they only looked for child porn on the PC, not national security leaks.  They are diligent.   Then it took one year to plod along and do the interviews and tap the AP phone lines--not that it was any kind of punishment for releasing their story before the White House could take credit, mind you--and realize the Mr. Sachtleben on the records was the same one they were trying to bust for child porn, an investigation that had apparently been put on hold for some strange reason.

So they busted him, but he didn't leak about the 'inside control' of the Yemeni AQ cell, John Brennan did.  But Brennan didn't leak because according to him that information--that we had inside control--was not classified.  The only way it wouldn't be of course is if the president had declassified it so they could tell the media.  So it was.  Now they are perp-walking Mr. Sachtleben as closing the case, yet we don't know if there were others the AP used to confirm their story or whether it was appropriate for the AQ insider story to be leaked, burning a spy, just to explain some talking points.

MORE  9/24/13

Here's the Politico's story, which contains this interesting segment:

”The phone records were necessary to identifying [Sachtleben] as the suspect,” said a federal law enforcement official. However, the official acknowledged that the FBI already had in its possession evidence linking him to the leak. Investigators in the separate child porn probe had his computer, which contained classified information.

But they didn’t search it for national security secrets because that wasn’t relevant to that inquiry, the official said. Only after the AP phone records pointed to Sachtleben as a suspect in the leak was the computer checked for classified information, setting in motion the leak charges, the official added.

This begs a couple of general questions. First, the above states that it was the AP call logs, which they claim occurred early in 2013, that nailed Mr. Sachtleben.  But the above quote says, "However, the official acknowledged that the FBI already had in its possession evidence linking him to the leak." That seems to go against what other outlets are reporting, such as the Guardian:

The justice department said in a statement that its pursuit of Sachtleben was made easier by the child pornography investigation, but that Sachtleben was not identified as a suspect in the leaks case until after investigators had analysed the AP phone records and compared them with other evidence in their possession.

So what was this other evidence they had? The computer?  Are they saying they didn't know what they had until they clandestinely studied the call logs?  Strange way of framing it, unless there are technical things we don't know about.

Also, when they are looking over a PC for something like child porn how do they avoid seeing things like pictures of grandma, financial statements, passwords and bank statements and copies of national security information? Once an agent has seen them can he somehow un-see them?  Or does it become a whisper to the boss--hey check this and they go out and get admissible evidence in a standard fashion?  

Anyway, here's a final thought on this from the Emptywheel.

FINAL FINAL THOUGHT  9/25/13

Here's a story of Sachteben's initial arrest in May 2012 for child porn.  Notice the potential time he was facing:

If convicted, Donald Sachtleben could face 20 years in prison on the distribution charge and 10 years for possession.

So he was facing 30 years on the child porn by itself, with a serious espionage charge on top of that, but will be serving only 11?  Sounds like a pretty good plea deal.

Aviation Update

Regards the UPS 1354 crash, condolences to the families of the victims and to the UPS family in general, who've now suffered the loss of four crewmembers and two beautiful airplanes in the last three years.

A couple of observations.

As with the Asiana crash, the NTSB has been very proactive and transparent so far.  They appear to be trying to do everything possible to remove the bad taste left by the recent reemergence of TWA800 story.  This is a good thing.

The weather could have been a factor, but that doesn't appear likely.  The ceiling and visibility was well above the minimums for runway 18, and from all we know the PAPI guidance lights were functional.  There is no instrument landing system for that approach.  One of the main questions they will likely be asking is why flight 1354--an Airbus widebody (a "heavy" in ATC lingo)--was shooting an approach on runway 18 instead of runway 06 or 24, which is about 3000 feet longer and has an ILS.  The CVR and ATC tapes will likely answer that question relatively soon. 

Witness statements are important as well--NTSB says they are on scene to collect 'perishable' info such as that from ear and eyewitnesses--and most have agreed there were explosions, although the number seems to range from 2 to 5.  As the fire department said, those could have been triggered by fuel tank impact.

As to witnesses, one man claimed to have been awakened by the explosions and taken his dog out for a walk to see what was going on and told of two explosions. Hearing several explosions could be explained by the aircraft initially striking the side of the small hill, first explosion, separating, then the remainder cartwheeling and coming to rest and exploding again. There are pictures of what appears to be the vertical stabilizer intact in the wreckage so the age-old issue of Airbuses and their tail sections might not have been a factor. Additionally it appears the aircraft was in a very shallow descent when it hit, which suggests they had some control (which would suggest the aircraft was physically intact--for the most part at least).

Interestingly, some published witness statements tend to become perishable themselves after crashes, we'll see if it happens on this one.  The same guy quoted above, Eddie Smith, was also quoted as follows in early editions regards his dog walk:

Smith said he was stopped by a Birmingham police officer who drew his weapon and ordered him to return to his home and said that there had been a plane crash.

Assuming he wasn't embellishing, why would a police officer draw a weapon on a guy walking his dog just because a plane had crashed?

Other witnesses claimed to hear strange engine noises and that the plane was on fire before it hit the ground.

Eye witnesses reported that the aircraft engines sounded odd and that the twin engine plane was on fire before it hit the ground.

Those things could be explained by the plane catching fire after initial impact with the trees and the pilot trying to apply power causing the engines to spool up as they realized they were too low.  There's a lag between the time a pilot firewalls the throttle and the engines respond, which is troublesome when the aircraft is too close to the ground.  However, if the witnesses are correct that the aircraft was on fire before striking anything it might change the entire investigation. As Al.com admitted regarding the crash of UPS flight 6 in Dubai a few years ago...

Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack, but there is no evidence to support their claim.

Indeed they did.  And of course we just came off a huge worldwide terror alert centered around AQAP, who were the ones that placed cargo bombs on two aircraft during that same time period several years ago.  So pretending there's no possible terrorism concern would be foolish.  However, there are many things that could rule it out pretty quickly, perhaps the most obvious being why they were landing on that specific runway in the dark.  Reports say the crew issued no distress call, suggesting they didn't know they had a problem until it was too late.

UPDATE  8/15/13

Here's the second press conference on the crash..


Two questions have possibly been answered.  One, it appears runway 06-24 was closed for repairs when this aircraft arrived.  This explains why the flight was landing on the shorter north-south runway without an ILS.  Runway 18 was the natural choice as compared to runway 36 based on light winds and the fact the flight was arriving from the north during a low traffic time.  An ever so slight tailwind of around 5 mph was reported but should not have seriously affected the approach, however the aircraft did pass through some shower activity from about 5 to 30 miles north of the airport during descent.  Flightaware profiles show the jet descended pretty rapidly through the area on its way in, but again, the crew didn't report anything unusual. 

Two, according to the NTSB's engine experts there was no evidence of a pre-impact fire. This does not mean the plane wasn't on fire before impact, just that the engines likely were not.  Also, no evidence of an uncontained engine failure to explain the short landing.  Recall several witnesses said the engines didn't sound quite right.   Former NTSB expert John Goglia has also been quoted as saying the engine turbofan blades were probably not spinning as fast as they normally would be in 'flight idle' (common to most landings) because they were still intact after impact.  This could explain the sounds people heard.  A lot will become more clear when they analyze the FDR, which is now back at NTSB headquarters.

So Much for the Big Threat?

It was inevitable--the US closes 22 embassies and issues a worldwide travel alert, nothing happens, then people start second-guessing the actions.  And they have. 

While it's tempting to suggest the whole thing was deliberately overblown to avoid some kind of political unpleasantness one should remember there are a lot of people in the intelligence apparatus that would be knowledgeable about such a stunt. Unless of course there was just enough credible and compartmentalized information to get away with it. But whenever a red flag is raised and nothing happens it's impossible to determine whether the red flag contributed to that nothing, or whether nothing would have happened anyway.

Anyway, since this is a blog let's construct a crude timeline of what might have triggered a conspiracy.  Here we go..

1.  Thursday August 1:  Edward Snowden granted asylum in Russia.  Keep in mind this is a HUGE slap in our American faces.  It's equivalent to a giant, middle-finger shaped rocket launched from Moscow and landing on the White House lawn, filled with poop.  

2.  Later Thursday August 1:  during the State Department Daily Briefing the same day a reporter asked spokeswoman Marie Harf about a 'rumor' of embassy closings.   She then confirmed that some embassies were being closed:

QUESTION: There are some, I guess you could call them, rumors that I was hoping you could address that some U.S. embassies may be closing or closed?

MS. HARF: Yes, just one second. So the Department of State has instructed certain U.S. embassies and consulates to remain closed or to suspend operations on Sunday, August 4th. The Department has been apprised of information that, out of an abundance of caution and care for our employees and others who may be visiting our installations that indicates we should institute these precautionary steps. The Department, when conditions warrant, takes steps like this to balance our continued operations with security and safety.

QUESTION: Which embassies and --

MS. HARF: I don’t have a full list of that in front of me. I can endeavor to get that.

QUESTION: Well, do you have a partial list?

MS. HARF: I don’t have a list in front of me.

3. Friday August 2: State Department officially clarifies embassy closings. They don't do briefings on Fridays in August but White House spokesman Jay Carney confirmed the closings to widespread press interest during his Friday presser. The embassies were to be closed on Sunday concurrent with the end of Ramadan due to some kind of special day that anonymous experts said would be a particularly good one for a terrorist to martyr himself.  It was also Obama's birthday.  Someone also leaked that the threat was triggered by AQ activity within AQAP and that attack preparations were underway.

4. Saturday August 3: Somebody leaked further details about the plot, which supposedly came from an intercepted message between AQ leaders. News orgs admitted they were withholding info on request from the administration. Sounded dire!  It was further announced that nineteen of the closed embassies will remain closed through Saturday August 10, further deepening the threat.  Obama played golf with a guy from Chicago who's associates are being investigated.  Then he went to Camp David for a party.   

5. Sunday August 4: All the talking heads lined up on the Sunday shows to outline the worst threat since 9/11.

6. Monday August 5: White House and State gave pressers, no change in status. No updates.  Fox News reporter asks State Department rep whether White House is "outraged" over the recent leaks about the threat.  It was not taken seriously of course.


7. Tuesday August 6: More intel leaked about the intercepted message--it was between Ayman Zawahiri and Nasser Wuhayshi. The president goes on a late night comedy show and provides important information.

8. Wednesday August 7: Another leak in support of the threat, this time to Daily Beast writers Josh Rogin and Eli Lake, describing the communications between AQ leaders as a 'conference call'. There is no White House briefing again.

9. Thursday August 8: Nothing significant happened.  White House briefing featured normal filibustering.

10. Friday August 9: Obama gave an afternoon press conference where he got few if any questions about the threat.   He got several about the NSA and surveillance, which dovetailed nicely into his announcement that he was actually ahead of Snowden on calling for reform of the NSA spying.  He announced a panel to investigate and report back to him.  He got asked about how the Benghazi investigation is coming along and possibly committed a crime in revealing sealed charges against some of the perps. Then he left Washington for a vacation trip to Martha's Vineyard. Later that evening the State Department announced the nineteen affected embassies would reopen the next day, Saturday the 10th.  No explanation was given as to why they were reopening (whether the threat had lessened, etc).

11. Saturday through the weekend: Press remained focused on story of California kidnapping. President played golf.  President allowed press to follow him for a hole and take pictures, which Greta Van Sustern thought was purposeful, ie, stick in your bunghole, America, I'm playing golf.  Stories began to surface about whether threat was warranted or not on the usual sites.

12. Monday August 12: State Department Daily Briefing; question was asked about the threat, not much was revealed.   Every embassy except in Yemen and Pakistan are back open.  Obama announced that DNI James Clapper, who lied to Congress about the spying, will be in charge of the panel and will be reporting findings about himself back to Obama.   

So, from the time Snowden was given asylum through the weekend following and throughout the subsequent week there was very little talk about Russia thumbing their nose at the Obama administration, or whether Snowden may have given them further sensitive or top secret information.  The AQ embassy attack story took all the air out of Snowden and now the president is on vacation. 

Meanwhile the previous thoughts on this blog about whether the government might have burned some intelligence secrets because they were covering a big story, like maybe the capture or killing of Zawahiri, looks less likely each passing day.  And the thought someone might have used terror threats to divert attention from a bigger more embarrassing story looks more and more possible.   

Really? A Conference Call?

A 20 person conference call.  That's the latest skinny on the big AQ threat:

The crucial intercept that prompted the U.S. government to close embassies in 22 countries was a conference call between al Qaeda’s senior leaders and representatives of several of the group’s affiliates throughout the region.

Now that's fodder for some dark humor.  Imagine: Zawahiri calls a GoToMeeting of the boys so they can discuss their lack of success reaching their terrorist goals, complete with charts and using the Tsarnaev brothers to shame the regional captains. "Do something!" the exasperated terror leader screams.   All completely oblivious to the massive NSA spying scandal thing in the news and the fact that all AQ members know they've been spied on since the 90s.  Wonder if anyone fell asleep in the meeting?

Seriously, should anyone believe this?  One, it seems to destroy the administration's carefully constructed paradigm that 'AQ Core' is somehow removed from "AQ affiliates' for the purposes of saying Obama has decimated AQ, (Core, but they always said there were affiliates, ahem).  As has been previously mentioned, leaking this has now burned the mode of connection they used along with burning our intelligence snoopers' ability to snoop on it.  So was it worth it just to explain the embassy closings?  Or is there something more going on?  Lake mentions that Zawahiri apparently thought his lines were secure:

Al Qaeda leaders had assumed the conference calls, which give Zawahiri the ability to manage his organization from a remote location, were secure. But leaks about the original intercepts have likely exposed the operation that allowed the U.S. intelligence community to listen in on the al Qaeda board meetings.

It's hard to imagine any commercial comms being thought of as 'safe' by anyone these days so perhaps it was a non-commercial venue workaround or some other super secret workup.  Maybe somebody felt it was worth leaking, but why?  Only a fool would leak this kind of thing--even if they were trying to explain our embassy closings.  Obama didn't elaborate on his Leno appearance so we don't know what we don't know.

Of course all of this strongly suggests we know the potential whereabouts of Zawahiri.  Early reports characterized the call between him and Nasser al-Wuhayshi was from the Pakistani tribal areas to Yemen but in today's State Department briefing there was an interesting moment between spokeswoman Jen Psaki said AP reporter Matt Lee.  First, Psaki's answer to a question about whether Core AQ is really not world AQ with this new revelation, emphasis added:

As we talked a little bit about yesterday, as the result of the enormous pressure we’ve put on the group, we have eliminated all of al-Qaida’s senior leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And because the current leaders of al-Qaida core are so worried about their personal safety, they’re far less able to plan attacks.

She said ALL.  Matt Lee caught that little gem and responded as such:

QUESTION: Jen, I’m confused here. You opened that answer by saying you’ve eliminated all of core al-Qaida leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Where do you think --

MS. PSAKI: I said almost all.

QUESTION: Oh, okay. I didn’t hear the word “almost.” I’m not sure – but you meant to say almost, if I didn’t mishear you. You did mean to say --

MS. PSAKI: Almost all.

QUESTION: -- almost all. Okay. So that would include Zawahiri?

MS. PSAKI: We’ve eliminated almost all.

QUESTION: Okay. But you still believe that he is in Afghanistan or Pakistan, that rough area?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any intel or anything --

QUESTION: Okay. And then the second --

MS. PSAKI: -- to share on his whereabouts.

Over the weekend the administration was asking media outlets to sit on some of the information to protect something.  Then they allowed news reporters to report that Zawahiri was calling from the tribal regions to Yemen, now today we learn it was a conference call to a whole bunch of leaders.  Then when asked today the spokeswoman, on a question about AQ Core being "decimated", says "all" in relation to the leadership being wiped out, then pretends she didn't say it.

So the burning question is what are they still not telling us?  Is it possible we have already eliminated Zawahiri and they are sitting on the info in an effort to round up the other leaders who were on the call, of which they potentially know some locations.  Many in the intel community wanted to do just that after the Bin Laden takedown and criticized the administration for spiking the football right away. 

Or was this just a gaffe in an effort to protect a political narrative with the entire embassy closing exercise just a diversion to make everyone stop talking about Snowden, Benghazi and all the other phony scandals©?

The latter seems very hard to buy considering the amount of people that would have to be involved, but with this administration one can never say never.  Time will tell.   

Investigation Update

One of the phony scandals© being dismissed by Democrats evidently includes the AP phone call logging taps, which were authorized by the Justice Department to help US Attorney Ronald Machen determine who might have leaked about a secret agent embedded within AQAP in Yemen.

You may recall the big story leaked to AP in 2012 about busting an underwear bomb plot, followed by an admission by the administration that they got the info from a person on the inside, effectively blowing the agent's cover.  They had to spirit him away.  And he wasn't even our guy.  

After the initial shock of that story wore off there has been little mention about it, other than it's presumably part of the phony scandal panoply.   No question the Obama folks have been the toughest administration in modern times--maybe ever--on prosecuting leakers, yet they can't seem to find anyone to indict on this (reason given for the log harvesting was that they exhausted all other reasonable efforts).   So did the phone logs bear any fruit?  Nobody knows.  Nobody has been caught yet. 

Meanwhile another leak about AQ and Yemen has appeared, this time to CBS:

The terrorism threat that prompted the U.S. government to close nearly two-dozen embassies and consulates surfaced when intelligence analysts intercepted electronic communications between top al Qaeda leaders, CBS News' Bob Orr has learned. Al Qaeda chief Ayman al Zawahiri and Nasir al-Wuhayshi, the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), were discussing "something big," sources say. It's rare for veteran al Qaeda leaders to break operational security by openly discussing possible plots, and the interception stunned U.S. officials.

Just like in 2012, somebody apparently felt the need to explain their actions.  Back then it was explaining how we knew a package bomb plot was stopped (which would have helped bolster Obama's 'AQ on the run' narrative); this time it's about justifying the temporary closures of 22 diplomatic facilities (the big cheese said 'do something!').  It appears they've now burned a line of intelligence by revealing this, sort of like when somebody in the Clinton crew leaked and blew cover on UBL's satellite phone back in the 90s.   Do we need another US Attorney? 

In the LOL department, Fox News asked the State Department today if they were 'outraged' about the leak, to which they had little comment.

And now, after CNN has interviewed the head of Ansar al-Sharia on Benghazi---who told them the FBI has never interviewed him--the Justice Department has suddenly pressed charges against him.  Meanwhile Major Hasan is defending himself by declaring that yes dammit, I'm a jihadist, vowing to prove he's guilty of killing all those soldiers after yelling allahu akbar.  You just can't make this stuff up.

On the Run, to Somewhere

Today is the president's birthday. What better present than an intercepted threat leading to a rather unusual global travel warning and the closing of 22 diplomatic posts, eh?  OK, we know for the Delegator-in-Chief it's really partying or playing 36 holes.   

But alright, we have a threat.  It's tempting to question it because there's certainly plenty to question.  

First of all, John Kerry just told the Pakistanis only days ago that the drone program in their territories will end 'very very soon' because AQ is only a shadow of its former self.  Everyone remembers Joe Biden telling America that UBL was dead and GM was alive. So c'mon, it's gotta be political theater designed to diminish Snowden's (and Putin's) PR victory or divert from the phony scandals©, one of which seems to have popped back up again.  Or in liberal-speak, Bush throwing up the yellow light warning before an election.    

Apparently sensing this, terrorism expert Peter Bergen rushed to the rescue of his favorite administration by pointing out the symbolism of the day to Muslims and why it might be a more advantageous day to commit suicide for the cause than say Christmas.  But hold on, that doesn't square with the 'all is well' narrative coming from the White House. Politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths all the time--which side is the least untruthful here?    

Because after all, threats still exist.  The administration likes to parse AQ into sections, referring to 'core AQ' in making pronouncements about how many they've sent to Allah as opposed to the relatively untouched AQIM.  But it hardly matters. UBL was taken out but as Hasan Turabi predicted a long time ago, killing bin Laden will just create thousands more.  Just look at Rewards for Justice site and notice the length of the list.

In doing so you'll see there are still some blue chip players on the field for team AQ Core, including Zawahiri, his old EIJ mate Saif al-Adel, Adnan Shukrijumah (Jafar the pilot), Abderraouf Jdey, Anas al-Liby, Yasin al-Suri (AQ's man in Tehran) and the "red-headed terrorist", Abu Musab al-Suri (allegedly released by Bashar Assad in retaliation for our taking sides).  Al-Suri is credited with the idea of small cells operating on their own much like what was seen with the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston. 

Aside from the core folks there are many offshoots and sympathizers. Abu Du'a is the leader of ISIS, the combination of AQ in Iraq + Al Nusra Front (remember, we were supposed to be fighting AQ wherever they exist--except Iraq, which apparently remains dumb).  Of course there is Mullah Omar of the Afghan Taliban, whose Pakistani brothers recently sent several squadrons to fight in Syria, the Haqqanis in AfPak, and AQ's man in North Africa, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, another zombie warrior wanted in the attack on the BP gas plant earlier this year in his home country of Algeria that killed three Americans.

There is also al-Shabbab in Somalia.  Few Americans realize we were involved in a hot war in Somalia a few years ago using Ethiopian ground forces, who basically fought to a draw with the terrorists (while doing nothing for their reputation in the region, leading some to suspect the crash of one of their passenger planes leaving Beirut shortly thereafter was something more than an accident).

The left likes to think of Iraq as completely separated from Islamists but we still haven't caught people like Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, Saddam's former right hand henchman and still number one on the Iraqi version of RFJ, who has been tied to many insurgent groups since Baghdad fell (and the violence has been horrific over the past few months).  Another Iraqi, Abdul Yasin (one of the bomb mixers of the 1993 World Trade Center attack) is still unaccounted for and it remains uncertain as to his relationship with Ramzi Yousef and Saddam. 

Another terrorist operating from Iraq was legacy bomb-maker Abu Ibrahim, leader of the 1980s "15 May Organization" terror group who planted a bomb on Pan Am flight 830 killing a Japanese teenager.  He's on the RFJ list.  His bomb might have killed everyone on board had the device been more potent--it did blow a hole through the floor and create a bulge in the fuselage but cockpit crewmembers Roy Hawk and James O'Halloran landed the plane safely.  The guy who planted the bomb, Mohammed Rashed, was recently released from US lockup after apparently cooperating over something (presumably we still want Ibrahim despite his advanced age, 70s).

Side note, Rashed was married to Christine Pinter.  She was connected to the German Marxist revolutionary group Badaar-Meinhof Gang and the two met while Rashed was at one of their compounds for training.  They later became the "Red Army Faction" but quickly disappeared after the fall of the Berlin wall.  Feel free to connect the dots.     

There are even a few Shia terrorists still wanted for attacks on aviation in the 80s, such as for TWA 847, one of whom was released by Germany several years ago.  Perhaps Mohammed Ali Hammadi was instrumental in providing information to nail one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world few had ever heard of, Imad Mughniyah, Hammadi's partner in crime in the 847 hijacking, in return for his early release.  Or perhaps not--he's still on the RFJ list (unless that was part of the bargain to maintain street cred).  Hard to know.

Right now our government seems to consider the AQ in the Arabian Peninsula gang to be the most dangerous faction operating.  Their players on the RFJ list are led by...wait, there appear to be no AQAP players on the list.  Weird.  Their leader is one Nasser al Wahayshi, a former secretary to UBL and lately reported to have been promoted to AQ Number Two, which means he's about to die.  One of the main players was Said al Shihri, who we've already sent to Allah although his brothers have only recently admitted it.  Another local leader was removed a few days ago during a recently heightened level of drone activity.   Of course Anwar al-Awlaqi and his teenage son were involved with these guys. 

Speaking of Yemen, the above-mentioned Baathist thug Izzat al-Duri was rumored to have been staying there several times over the years...

Considering I’ve been saying that al Douri was in Yemen since 2006, I’m not surprised. The Iraqi Baathists in Yemen are a significant factor in both the Sa’ada Wars and the insurgency in Iraq. Their presence also underpins the Yemeni regime’s relationship with Syria. Further, the Baathists and al Qaeda were colluding in Yemen to transit fighters to Iraq, with the support of the Yemeni state. Saddam and Saleh were very close as were their top leaderships.

Bold to indicate yet another inconvenient link if true, but who really knows the truth?  The story was written when Saleh was still in power so if he had any dealings with Syria it would have likely been with Assad, which doesn't make sense considering the loyalties.  Saleh counted Uncle Saddam as his mentor and invited a lot of former Baath IIS personnel to Yemen in the aftermath of the war, some of which might have been working with the CIA in the war against jihad, which means it's possible to believe ole Izzat could actually be a US asset (explaining why he hasn't been captured).

Then again the Iranians say some spectacular things about al-Duri and his possible Syrian connections related to WMDs (which would also explain why he's never been caught), even throwing in a mention of the ex-KGB president of Russia.  Problem is their statements tend to be riddled with BS.  Or just complete and total BS.  The Yemeni connection to al-Duri may also be BS.  Actually, about the only thing that is known for sure about the GWoT is that there's a fog of BS surrounding it. 

Meanwhile the most famous AQAP member remains master bombmaker Ibrahim al Asiri, responsible for the underwear and package bombs along with an anal cavity version and maybe others.  He was the guy the Yemeni spy was targeting last year when the AP revealed the busted bomb plot.  This led US officials to admit the activity while possibly blowing the cover of the agent, which resulted in a leak investigation that eventually resulted in a phony scandal© of 40 AP phone lines being logged by the FBI out of the Capitol, for which no one has yet been indicted. Some think Asiri may be the de facto leader of AQAP right now but whatever the case it appears his group is vowing to take down commercial aircraft, making them pretty dangerous considering the Detroit flight and the cargo package bombs.

But wait, all the above is known.  How does it relate to now?

Recall the last time a prominent AQ leader was taken out.  In 2012, not too long before the 9/11 anniversary, Abu Yaha al-Liby was droned, which triggered a call-to-arms pronouncement by Zawahiri only days before 9/11 along with a similar call from AQAP.  What followed was the attack on Benghazi by a protest crowd angered over a B movie trailer terrorist group and black flags of jihad being raised over several other embassies in the region.  After announcing that the FBI was investigating so they couldn't say too much, the administration shortly blamed everything on the filmmaker and threw him in jail.  AQ was on the run and GM was alive and so forth.

Fast forward to now.  Ramadan is ending with some kind of special Night of the Long Knives or something; Zawahiri is again hitting the airwaves with his explanation of the removal of Morsi (ours and the Joos' fault); and AQAP is making threats over the loss of Al Shihri.   So somehow we've managed to piss off Zawahiri and the Brotherhood, AQAP, and even General al-Sissi (who is anything but--he led the military in taking out both Mubarak and Morsi).  Anyway, we all know how peaceful the Islamists are when they get their robes in a bunch.   Rumors say the epicenter of the threat is somewhere near Cairo. Our ambassador is probably number one on some of the "AQ hit lists". 

Among other reasons for concern are the mass jailbreaks over the past month in Libya, Iraq and Pakistan. Interpol is involved, which seems fruitless, but it shows the urgency.  Meanwhile everything is happening just as someone other than Fox News has reported about Benghazi.  The last time this happened Jay Carney called a special double-secret background briefing with the suddenly hostile White House press corpse and within hours the IRS released their phony scandal©, giving the press and Issa something else to chew on.
Recall the sickness that befell Hillary when she had to testify about it.  Hope she's feeling better.

All of which could lead to the suspicion they are doing it again, throwing a net over Benghazi with another more dramatic story.  But while that scenario fits rather nicely into a desperate political cover-up it also fits nicely into an effort to salvage a darker issue involving weapons we don't want the head-choppers to have and the protection of names and sources of those doing the work of the Sheepdog.  

Indeed the press has long reported that CIA contractors were in Benghazi to vacuum up Gaddafi's arsenal of surface-to-air missiles.  If it were to be discovered the CIA had been running arms to Syria from Libya through Turkey then certainly it would make the president look like a big fat liar over the 'red line' stuff.  But do Republicans really want to poke this nest?  In the 90s they focused on Monicagate and charged the president with wagging the dog for shooting cruise missiles at bin Laden, who was quietly gaining strength.  How can the public know for sure the WMDs used by Assad's forces--already confirmed by Obama--have not been captured by some of the 'rebels' fighting there?  Are we depending exclusively on Assad or was that entire story bogus as well?

Those still reading to this point are probably begging for a point. OK, the takeaway is that while it's tempting to believe the president is just throwing up a yellow terror alert to divert from phony scandals© or Snowden or the limp economy or the train wreck known as Obamacare there are still a lot of people who want to kill us in spectacular fashion.  In other words, the world still hates us despite Bush being retired.

But we are not reminded of this fact very often.  The administration has been trying to take a page out of Clinton's 90s playbook by pretending such threats are being reduced or something far away.  They know we crave more important stories like George Zimmerman getting a speeding ticket, A-Rod's suspension or any variety of 50 Shades of Gray salaciousness.  The real enemy combatants are known as Creepy Ass Tea Party Crackers, who are trying to derail hopenchange and send America back to Jim Crow days, a fight that only Eric Holder is courageous enough to fight.

[A quick sidebar---the Snowden revelations, along with Rosen and the AP, have put a dagger in the notion the left (aside from Glenn Greenwald) really ever cared about Bush trashing civil liberties. Call it a teachable moment of sorts.]   

But ok, ok, the point.  The point is don't pass the terror alert off as total BS.  There might be some opportunism thrown in as to the timing but by overtly coming out with these warnings has forced the administration to risk blowing the AQ fairy tales they've carefully crafted, which go into downgrading the military and bringing troops home from Afghanistan (nation-building at home, etc).   They simply cannot afford to have anymore black flags flying over our embassies or anymore murdered ambassadors.

MORE  8/5/13

Since the world still seems to be intact the questions are now rolling in, followed by helpful government experts providing answers.  Here's CBS News:

Al Qaeda chief Ayman al Zawahiri and Nasir al-Wuhayshi, the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), were discussing "something big," sources say. It's rare for veteran al Qaeda leaders to break operational security by openly discussing possible plots, and the interception stunned U.S. officials.

Sources confirm for CBS News that the intercepted electronic conversation occurred between the top leadership of core Al Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan and the head of Yemen based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Nassir al-Wuhayshi. One source said that the tone of the conversation was serious and had a sense of urgency, reports CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton.

The source said the sense of the directive from al Qaeda leadership was pushing for AQAP to move forward with an attack. The source said that the urging was to have the attack coincide with the conclusion of Ramadan and to ensure that it was a "big" attack.

Of course we couldn't tell if they were winking or had their fingers crossed.   Surely they knew we were listening.  The question anyone with a brain has to ask is why would Zawahiri give up his own location by using a traceable phone?  Are we on the verge of snagging him--this being the prelude, or is he suicidal?

If that's all there is it just ain't James Bond enough to pass the smell test.  On the other hand, this scary scenario seems a little more reasonable.   Now, if time passes and the only thing that happens is a push for more NSA spying and a deeper trashing of our Fourth Amendment rights at the airport then maybe the conspiracy theories will get some legs.

FINAL THOUGHT  8/5/13

I can't get past the revelation that they actually admitted to pinpointing Zawahiri's call location when grabbing this intel.  Obviously they've burned the line they spoke on so both players have to be wondering whether they should be running or not.   Which brings to mind a thought--are we about to open a can on Yemen?  As the AP reporter mentioned at the State Dept briefing today, the threat can't be very 'specific' if it includes 19 countries.   Maybe they are being closed before something happens--something we do.   

OK, ONE MORE  8/5/13

Apparently it's not too unsafe for McCain and Graham to travel to the epicenter of the threat--they arrive in Egypt tonight. 

Meanwhile, it was noticeable today that most questions to the White House were about the massive terror threat and not how Putey Poot stuck his finger in our eye last week.   Again, the further this goes on without anything happening the more it's going to look like a political op.