Side Tracks

Eric Clapton covered this song on 461 Ocean Blvd, although many probably remember this song from that album..

 

Ayers, Again

Instapundit points to a Breitbart video of Bill Ayers giving another speech a few weeks ago wherein he admits to having a "fundraiser" in his home for Barack Obama to help kick-start his political career in the mid 90s. This was never really in doubt to those who knew Ayers as more than described by the campaign and their friends in the mainstream media, but perhaps the more interesting thing is what Ayers also said about Obama at the event:

"At that time I thought geez, Obama's an ambitious young man, he wants to be mayor of Chicago.."

That's exactly what Jack Cashill has been saying for awhile now--that when Ayers co-wrote Dreams he was just trying to help a fellow traveler become mayor of Chicago:

Obama’s success must chafe Ayers even more. He hoped to mold a mayor of Chicago and instead he ended up with a president whose ambitions would always corrupt his ideology.

Maybe Obama and Ayers never dreamed they'd have to hide such an embarrassing relationship from a national voting audience one day.  Or perhaps this is just Bill Ayers playing his own little game of cat and mouse with the right for self-amusement. At any rate, the media seems to be in no rush to get the real story.  There are many more serious stories about Herman Cain's alleged bimbos or Rick Perry's confusion over the voting age to allow any reporters to be used for fact-finding about the current president or how he was vetted.

Turmoil in Pakistan

It's amazing how detached Americans have become to the central front of the global war on terror/extremism/man-caused disasters (that aren't always Islamic even though we have an army deployed against purely Islamic enemies).  The NATO raid on the Pakistani army bases over the weekend resulted in a "this time we mean it" stoppage of US supply routes and a base closure, but it has also continued a bitter division in Pakistan that began with the UBL raid.

Does any question exist as to why NATO decided to fire back after taking fire, knowing the sensitivity and blowback from such an action? Is it a presidential-level decision or a battlefield commander decision?  Even if it's a battlefield commander decision such authority comes from the president, who is aware of NATO operations right along the border and the potential of skirmishes.   So what's our role here?

Anyway, as the dustup continues some folks are highlighting a confidential memo that was presumably delivered from the Pakistani civilian government through Mansour Ijaz to General Jones to Admiral Mullen about 10 days after the bin Laden raid, which shines some light on perhaps why the Pak army might have fired in the first place:

1. President of Pakistan will order an independent inquiry into the allegations that Pakistan harbored and offered assistance to UBL and other senior Qaeda operatives. The White House can suggest names of independent investigators to populate the panel, along the lines of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, for example.

2. The inquiry will be accountable and independent, and result in findings of tangible value to the US government and the American people that identify with exacting detail those elements responsible for harboring and aiding UBL inside and close to the inner ring of influence in Pakistan’s Government (civilian, intelligence directorates and military). It is certain that the UBL Commission will result in immediate termination of active service officers in the appropriate government offices and agencies found responsible for complicity in assisting UBL.

3. The new national security team will implement a policy of either handing over those left in the leadership of Al Qaeda or other affiliated terrorist groups who are still on Pakistani soil, including Ayman Al Zawahiri, Mullah Omar and Sirajuddin Haqqani, or giving US military forces a “green light” to conduct the necessary operations to capture or kill them on Pakistani soil. This “carte blanche” guarantee is not without political risks, but should demonstrate the new group’s commitment to rooting out bad elements on our soil. This commitment has the backing of the top echelon on the civilian side of our house, and we will insure necessary collateral support.

4. One of the great fears of the military-intelligence establishment is that with your stealth capabilities to enter and exit Pakistani airspace at will, Pakistan’s nuclear assets are now legitimate targets. The new national security team is prepared, with full backing of the Pakistani government – initially civilian but eventually all three power centers – to develop an acceptable framework of discipline for the nuclear program. This effort was begun under the previous military regime, with acceptable results. We are prepared to reactivate those ideas and build on them in a way that brings Pakistan’s nuclear assets under a more verifiable, transparent regime.

5. The new national security team will eliminate Section S of the ISI charged with maintaining relations to the Taliban, Haqqani network, etc. This will dramatically improve relations with Afghanistan.

6. We are prepared to cooperate fully under the new national security team’s guidance with the Indian government on bringing all perpetrators of Pakistani origin to account for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, whether outside government or inside any part of the government, including its intelligence agencies. This includes handing over those against whom sufficient evidence exists of guilt to the Indian security services.

In other words--and this could be way off base coming from an internet yahoo--in the midst of turmoil between the civilian and military forces perhaps the generals ordered their army to fire on NATO in an effort to create outrage amongst the population to support a military coup. The letter itself seems to be a coup attempt by the civilians to defang the ISI and military leaders who held UBL under house arrest for political benefit.   Ah yes, such is the state of our top ally in the fight against extremism.  In the past money has always managed to heal these bitter rifts but this will be a true test of our dollar diplomacy.  Dollars to donuts the money wins again--and perhaps that's why average Americans will remain tuned out.     

Kudos to Blitzer...

...for running a smooth, fair, and representative debate tonight.  Sometimes CNN gets it right.  Blitzer focused questions and didn't try to make himself the show, and gave all the candidates equal time.  Romney might have even been shortchanged a bit.

As to who won, who knows.  There didn't seem to be any zinger or senior moments.  A couple of things stood out-- Gingrich was hammered over illegal immigration by basically coming out for amnesty based on some kind of draft board panel he'd set up to decide their fate.  Aside from the horrible image that brings to mind, it's impossible to decide whether to give Juan and his family amnesty because he's been here 25 years and goes to mass every week or Jose and his family, who's only been here 10 years and doesn't go to mass versus Ricardo who's been here 5 years but is attending school on his own nickel.  Utter arbitrary chaos.  The answer might play better in a general election against Obama, though.

Herman Cain seems less impressive with each debate.  The political hits are taking their toll, it appears. Santorum and Huntsman did what they do on the far ends.  Huntsman says America has lost trust in its institutions, which has been ongoing since Watergate, while suggesting nothing to fix it except electing him.
Bachmann always gives competent answers that belie her Hollywood-formed reputation, but gets no traction.  Romney was his usual grinning self but had another capable debate, positioning himself well on everything.  Perry still seems halting, even though he was the only one who made the Hizballah-Iran connection on a question about Syria (although Mitt handily shot down his Syria no-fly zone idea).  Perry seems to like wild ideas, which may sink him. 

Speaking of wild ideas, there's Ron Paul saying the Taliban just want us to leave their country, while quipping something about how the US was not attacked (although it wasn't clear if he meant 9/11 or something else).  It really doesn't matter because his stock answer to all foreign policy questions is that we are at fault for engaging with the world except in some quaint 18th century way, while we live in a world with 21st century technology.  We have no choice but to engage and form allies, but when we do we'll make enemies.  And sometimes the crazier ones will attack us, as on 9/11.  Someone as smart as him should understand that.  Maybe during the next debate someone can ask whether he thinks the United States brought World War II on ourselves, just for fun.  

Chem Weapons in Libya

From the Washington Post:

Pentagon and CIA analysts have asserted that Iran fired chemical artillery shells at Iraqi troops in 1988, a contention supported by secret Iraqi government documents obtained after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. A 1987 letter, written by Iraq’s military intelligence director and stamped “top secret,” described three Iranian chemical attacks and sought to assess what appeared to be a growing Iranian interest in mustard agent. “The enemy has chemical bombs/shells,” concluded the letter, part of an archives acquired by the Conflict Records Research Center at the National Defense University. It said that Iran probably received help from a foreign power in obtaining the chemicals to fill its munitions and that it was attempting “by various means to reach an advanced stage of chemical agent production.”

Wait sorry, that was on page two. You can read all about the surprise chem weapons found in Libya on page one, where anonymous sources tell reporters Iran might have supplied these mustard gas shells to Libya after the Iran-Iraq war (somewhere around 1989).   Not sure how they know it unless there's a "made in Iran, death to America" label on the canisters.  

But the more interesting part of this story is the intelligence on Iraq on page two.  Suddenly "Iraqi government documents obtained after the fall of Baghdad" can be trusted!  Wow.  And in this iteration, the WaPo tells us that such documents seemed to confirm that the Islamic regime in Iran indeed had chemical weapons because they were firing them at Iraqis during their war.  

But wait--how did the Mullahs get chem weapons?  Is there a secret picture of Rummy shaking hands with Ayatollah Khomeini we haven't seen yet?  Because after all, that's the only way Iraq got their stuff--from us, and the picture proved it.     

If Rummy didn't supply Tehran which "foreign power" did?  The Soviets?  French?  Chinese?  North Korea?  

And what about the rest of those captured Iraqi documents?  Are we now to believe the ones about the Taliban, or about WMDs?  Or does this only work when a Democratic political purpose is to be served, like piling on Iran?  Feel free to suspend your disbelief until told otherwise (by the people who said Bush lied). 

Now, on Libya, the presence of mustard gas makes the Bush-Rice disarmament deal look a little silly.  Did they really trust that little madman?  Silly, not smart diplomacy.  And who knows, there may be more WMDs stashed around and about, or the mustard stash they found may have been tapped into already.  After all there were no UN tags on the stockpile.   All of which should say something about international inspections and estimates in general.  Remember, we were told the UN inspectors could be left to make sure Saddam was WMD-free, after which he too would have pushed for sanctions to be dropped just like Gaddafi. 

And what about Syria? Intelligence estimates suggest they also have chem weapons, probably stored in the Bekaa Valley.  If Iraqi docs are now in vogue, shall we now believe this fantasy as well?  And surely if the Iranians were the ones selling to Libya there's much more of that stuff in Syria, their main middle eastern ally. Yet Assad's country is in turmoil and our Secretary of State is predicting his eventual demise. Hopefully there's a plan to keep those weapons away from AQ or Hizballah or other "lone wolves" as that regime falls.

WaPo's OWS Coverage

From the WaPo's photo gallery of OWS DC..

Notice the caption about the protester waving a "US flag".  Notice the stars on the 'US flag'.  And notice the advertisement targeting the protesters with a raised fist.  From a bank.    

Here's a sign with a subtle message taken from feminist Audre Lorde, which could be interpreted as something more violent...

But of course that's impossible because the Tea Party is the party of violence.  Going through the photo gallery it's easy to see that some of these liberal reporters must be giddy about this movement just based on the selective shots chosen.  The WaPo today also contained a declaration of war, er non-violent protest by the so-called founders of the OWS movement, "Adbusters".  One can wonder where they got the idea, but don't expect the media to wonder.

Anyway, as mentioned they seem incapable of finding the more controversial signs, such as ones mentioning Che or sponsorship emblems from the World Socialist Workers Party or other such outfits that have been a common fixture of these same "Day of Action" rallies since the Bush years.  Contrast that with the editorials about racist signs at Tea Party events or the blow-up about the phantom spitting incident and it's easy to see where the sympathies lie.

Some may say "so what wingnut, quit playing the victim" but the point is that despite Fox News and AM radio the mainstreamers still drive news coverage in America and are responsible for most of the narratives exploited by the entertainment establishment, which can have political impacts.  Not covering things represents a sort of soft bias and can sometimes be more effective than covering things in an overtly biased manner.  Just look how well it worked for Obama.   And despite the current Obama-less narrative with OWS, according to at least one protester, there's still hope for change..

SPEAKING OF SILENCE NOT PROTECTING...

We have the first recorded example..

A man threw an aluminum water bottle at a UC Berkeley student Thursday evening on campus, causing minor injuries to the victim’s face. At about 5:09 p.m., the female student was approached by a man at “the northeast exterior of the Haas Pavilion,” according to a UCPD crime alert. The man asked the student if she was going to the protest on Sproul Plaza, and when the victim answered “no,” the suspect yelled at her. “People like you are the reason that California is in debt,” he said, according to the crime alert.

Side Tracks

You might ask why some conservative blogger would post this song.  Trying to score brownies from the cool people?  Nope.  It's a damn good song.  But the message!  It condemns the stuffy organized world and how it sucks the creativity, spirit and expression out of life, and only when one becomes a liberal do they achieve a kind of freedom.  There may be a little truth in that for some people, but all one has to do is witness the collapsing EU and a debris trail of socialist experiments before it to know that liberalism doesn't always work so well in all endeavors.  There's a place for the logical and cynical, and a place for liberals.  That's what makes the world turn.