20 years ago today...

...TWA flight 800 exploded off Long Island.   There's a lot going on in our world today and this will pass without thought for the most part, but it's worth mentioning that some consider this a cold case that was never fully solved.

Here's one of them--former NTSB investigator Hank Hughes, explaining his role and opinion.  For what it's worth, the damage pattern seen on MH17, a verifiable missile shoot-down, didn't resemble what can be seen on the reconstructed TWA 747.  But, we don't know what the wings or horizontal stabilizers looked like or the tail fin as they were not included in the rebuild.  Nor were the engines. 

And we still don't know why agencies like the CIA were involved in explaining to the public the NTSB's implausible scenario that the nose fell off and the rest of the aircraft ascended several thousand feet, which was meant to explain away eyewitnesses who said they saw missile streaks.

Meanwhile, few if any aircraft have been retrofitted for nitrogen inerting systems, which were supposed to prevent future similar crashes, of which there have been none.  And cargo aircraft were not included in this recommended fix because we all know cargo aircraft don't blow up or something.  So you decide.   

Regardless, the official probable cause is in the books and will not be changed anytime soon. Eventually the skeptics and cynics and conspiracists will die off and the story of flight 800 will be relegated to the corners of history.  But there's someone running for president right now who might know a little more than the average Joe.

28 pages? Why wasn't this in the report?

The long-awaited 28 redacted pages in the Congressional report on 9/11 were released today, although they were overshadowed by another terrorist attack and the chaos in Turkey.

While there were some revelations there were no real bombshells, well wait, other than the terrorist dry run in 1999.  Or the revelation that a Saudi was checking security along the southwest border in the late 90s.  Or that our intelligence apparatus requested help from Saudi intelligence in the summer of 2001 (when the lights were blinking red) and got rebuffed.     

But for those who've read the FBI 302s long available on the web regarding al-Bayoumi and Bassnan in San Diego (who helped the two west coast hijackers) this report just fills in some gaps. 

Yes, it appears some Saudi Arabians were aiding the hijackers, to possibly include our buddy Prince Bandar and some in the intelligence arm.   The report concludes that the FBI wasn't treating them as enemies before 9/11, actually, they were considered allies. 

But let's say Bush or even Bill Clinton smelled the rat about this relationship beforehand and concluded there were plots sanctioned by the Kingdom--were they supposed to invade the holy land of Mecca and blow up the Kaaba, invoking the wrath of millions of moderate Muslims?  Mecca is really nuclear deterrence for Saudi Arabia, if you think about it.  Maybe Iraq was really designed to get an America presence and democratic rule closer to the Kingdom, and Iran (who also has some weird ties to 9/11). 

Anyway, we'll see how much traction this release gets in the press intelligensia.   It's going to be hard to topple the current headlines, or BLM, or even the latest Trump press conference.  After all, it's not like it states in clear English that Bush blew the towers. 

But maybe Trump should be taking a close look at it since it does lay out a case that the Saudis were sewing the seeds of 9/11 while Bill was diddling interns and Hillary was busy blaming a vast right wing conspiracy.  This same woman wants the keys to the White House back.

Perhaps Trump could also remind the various Democratic Party operatives intrepid mainstream reporters about this story, which also wasn't included in the 9/11 report:

In a revelation missing from the official investigations of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the FBI placed a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden in 1993 and ascertained that the al Qaeda leader was looking to finance terrorist attacks in the United States, according to court testimony in a little-noticed employment dispute case.

The information the FBI gleaned back then was so specific that it helped thwart a terrorist plot against a Masonic lodge in Los Angeles, the court records reviewed by The Washington Times show. “It was the only source I know in the bureau where we had a source right in al Qaeda, directly involved,” Edward J. Curran, a former top official in the FBI’s Los Angeles office, told the court in support of a discrimination lawsuit filed against the bureau by his former agent Bassem Youssef.

Get that?  The FBI had a mole in AQ that was embedded with bin Laden in 1993.   This mole warned of UBL's goal to finance terrorism against the USA and perhaps prevented an attack in Los Angeles.  In 1993.  How did the 9/11 Commission miss that?  How did the FBI think it wasn't important?  

Let's face it, nobody really wants to get to the truth about much of anything anymore. It's just too inconvenient for too many parties and too many people have too much to lose. September 11th happened and it can't be reversed.  The Saudis aren't our friends, we already knew this.   

The guy is a terrorist--go grab his ass

Those words were once spoken by noted climate scientist and vice president Al Gore.  He offered the blunt assessment to Bill Clinton and his advisors huddling over how to handle a foreign terrorist.  In doing so he admitted it was a violation of international law.  But the guy's a terrorist!   

Strange how after the biggest terrorist attack in American history we actually DID go grab a terrorist's ass, in Italy.   But the CIA officers who did it were all later convicted of crimes by outraged Italian prosecutors.  One of the officers, Sabrina de Souza,  has found herself in a position of being extradited back to Rome to perhaps face serving jail time.  She made the mistake of leaving the States. 

And the Obama administration seems OK with that.  

Without knowing all the intricate details of this case, on the surface it sure seems weird that we would trade 5 hardcore Taliban terrorist commanders for an Army deserter, then allow the Italians to roast a CIA officer who herself was also on the global battlefield defending the West against radical Islamists like this cretin.   But it's an outrage a day anymore.  

Aviation Update

Once again an aviation tragedy gets turned into a political football.   But this isn't all about Trump. 

Yes, the Donald showed poor judgment in jumping on the terrorist bandwagon as soon as the news reports came in on EgyptAir 804.  While that might have been everyone's gut reaction, a president cannot always operate off gut reactions.  Imagine Trump in the White House reacting this way then later the crash is blamed on a mechanical issue.   And that's no endorsement of Hillary, who also got on the bomb theory bandwagon albeit after unnamed US officials leaked what might amount to the same suspicions everyone else had.


Of course those US officials were echoing Egyptian officials in the early terror pronouncement.   And yes, the media has already started a whitewash campaign to pretend that Hillary really didn't endorse the terrorism angle on day one just like Donald, and will use it as a cudgel against him.   But he allowed it.

Meanwhile, those same initial reports indicated there was no distress call from the jet to Egyptian air traffic control after it was 'handed off' from Greek controllers. Some news stories suggested there was no contact at all--the plane just went down.  That's presumably what got many in the US media going down the terrorism road.     

Now today it was reported that there was actually an extensive conversation between Egyptian ATC and the doomed plane as it made an emergency descent due to a fire.  Wow, how did that get lost?  So that begs the question: were early reports from Cairo bungled or was it a deliberate deception?  Perhaps that's why someone on the inside leaked ACARS reports to Avherald that showed the onboard fire.  

Does all this mean the Donald goofed up and there was no terror attack?  Yes and maybe no.  Yes, he goofed up by jumping the gun, but yes it might still be an attack.  We know there was a fire, it started somewhere/somehow.  Terrorists these days are likely using small incendiary devices they can get past security--recall the Daallo Airlines A321 event where the idiot succeeded in blowing himself out of the jet and killing nobody else. The plane landed safely.  He smuggled the device in on his wheelchair.  So just because the aircraft didn't suffer a complete hull failure and immediately fall from the sky doesn't mean it wasn't attacked by someone. 

Also, just because the fire might have started in the electronics bay or lavatory doesn't necessarily mean there was no sabotage involved-- see the New York Times story today about what EgyptAir employees scrawled on the outside of that very same aircraft after current president Al-Sisi couped out Muslim Brotherhood terrorist sympathizer Mohammed Morsi two years ago.  That might amount to Jihadi sabotage, which most people would consider the same as Islamic terrorism. 

Still, all this new information certainly tips the scales of likely cause away from terrorism and more towards mechanical failure.   The question then becomes why the Egyptians allowed the erroneous information to percolate in the world media for days?   Was their concern legal liability or were they seriously trying to deflect while giving them time to comb their airports for Morsi/ISIS sympathizers?  Is the submarine they are sending in meant to locate the wreckage or maybe manage it?

Whatever the case, it behooves politicians and other officials to reserve judgments on these kinds of events for at least a few days.      

MORE  5/23/16

In another example of how most media outlets shouldn't be trusted to even report on a 3td class presidential race, much less important worldwide events, now they are saying there was no extended conversation.   And no, it doesn't mean that was deception or misdirection, it was likely some media twit misunderstanding the source. 

Also, on CNN's coverage this evening they were saying that whole 90 degree 360 degree turn thing might be fiction as well, since that information was presumably gleaned from primary radar only.  If the leaked ACARS messages indeed ended abruptly only minutes into the event, along with the secondary radar transponder track, then it seems we are back to Trump's original speculation.  At least right now.  The only definitive way to settle this will be the old-fashioned way, analyzing the recorders and wreckage.   But politicos don't have time to wait.   

A lot more than 28 pages

The media is becoming buzzed about the uproar about the 28 redacted pages in the 9/11 report that presumably fingers Saudi involvement (and Bushco protection) in the plot. Obama, while calling his administration the most transparent ever, has refused to release pages for his entire presidency for some reason.  Riyadh is throwing out a massive bluff in an effort to stop it, well, an effort to retain sovereign immunity so they won't be sued. 

With recent pressure the president has royally proclaimed he will decide on whether to declassify it during some Friday before a holiday weekend this summer.  Meaning he can either decide not to and hope the presidential elections suck all the attention away, or announce he will declassify the pages and hope it takes until Christmas to complete.   It's surprising he didn't appoint another blue ribbon panel to study whether he should declassify these or not, which is probably because he doesn't need a year or two to stall.  

Speculation has focused on the docs confirming the Michael Moore Fahrenheit 9/11 cartoon version of Bush, but stop and use some critical thought for a second.

One, if this were just some politically embarrassing confirmation on Bush's chummy friendship with the Sauds why wasn't it released long ago?   Two, 9/11 and Islamic terrorism didn't just spring forth on W's inauguration day, it was there dating back to his pappy's presidency at least. So, what about Saudi involvement in terrorism BEFORE Bush? Were they playing a double game with us with bin Laden, et al? 

It's possible, certainly not probable, but possible the release of the 28 pages might also pressure some sunshine on the details described in this essay going back to the 90s.  For instance, who was Ramzi Yousef, exactly? Who funded him? Who were he and his uncle KSM really working for, or against? Was there Saudi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing, or other plots going back well before 9/11?   This of course would be seminal considering that Bill Clinton is effectively running for a third term in the White House. 

There are many reasons why even an Obama administration wouldn't release information fingering the House of Saud in the 9/11 plot, oil, obviously, but also the notion that America was going to war with Mecca and Medina.  Or the notion that 28 pages won't satisfy our curiosity.   Hillary already knows the answers to many of these questions and she's a favorite to enter the Oval Office and lock everything down for another 8 years.  Good luck getting anything out of a president allowed to get away with having a private server. 

So we return to Obama and the 28 pages.   If he does shock the world and authorize release--and the release occurs before the November elections--and it illustrates Saudi involvement in the plot DURING the tenure of Bill Clinton (when the plot was hatched), what would that do to his wife's presidential chances?   Is Obama holding a massive Trump card at the moment?

HILLARY WEIGHS IN .. already

In a slightly bizarre spectacle former Clinton insider George Stephanopoulis asks Hillary about the Schumer-Cornyn 9/11 bill, in which she claims she has no opinion on because she hasn't studied it (maybe she learned about it on TV).  After the interview, Team Hillary realized how bad this looked and responded with a statement, which is a model for law school students:

"Hillary Clinton supports the efforts by Senator Schumer and his colleagues in the Senate to secure the ability of 9/11 families and other victims of terrorist acts to hold accountable those responsible. As president she would work with Congress to this end."

Hard-hitting and specific! Hillary wants to hold people accountable!  The person who used a private server, outside of all government rules and ethics.

MORE  4/17/16

It's interesting that 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said the following:

John Lehman, secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration and another member of the 9/11 Commission, told 60 Minutes:

“We’re not a bunch of rubes that rode into Washington for this commission… We’ve seen fire and we’ve seen rain and the politics of national security. We all have dealt for our careers in highly classified and compartmentalized in every aspect of security. We know when something shouldn’t be declassified. And this, those 28 pages in no way fall into that category.”

[snip]

Lehman told 60 Minutes that he has no doubt some high Saudi officials knew assistance was being provided to al Qaeda, but he doesn’t think it was ever official policy. He also doesn’t think it absolves the Saudis of responsibility, Kroft said in his commentary.

Keep in mind the 28 pages aren't from the 9/11 Commission Report, which barely mentions Bandar, they are from a Congressional Inquiry Report initiated in 2002. The question then is whether this information was classified only by the Bush administration, or whether there were Democrats on the committee who agreed to keep it quiet.

After all, the Kuala Lumpur terror summit meeting was held in January 2000, well before Bushitler and Darth Cheney entered office.  If Saudi Arabia was working with AQ that means they were doing so under Clinton.   Did he know?  We are left with the following scenarios regarding the CIA:  1) they knew about Saudi involvement but didn't tell Clinton, or 2) they didn't know about it, and if so, why not (especially since they tracked the terrorists from Kuala Lumpur to Los Angeles)?  Or 3) they knew and told Clinton but he didn't do anything, or worse, told agencies to stand down.

All of those have tremendous blowback potential not directed towards Bush.   The question is will the media allow any blowback on the Clintons for anything?   They may not, but they have no control over a loose cannon like Trump at a debate, do they. 

WORD   4/19/16

This should be the final post on this topic, really on this blog, period.  Many bloggers got their legs posting on the search for objective truth about the GWoT, especially after the disinformation began.  I threw in my two cents because it seemed important.

Now Donald Trump, the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States, is out today using this 28 page issue to suggest Bush fraudulently attacked Iraq, exactly as far lefties have claimed for years.  Forget that it's another attempt at throwing away all history prior to Bush's inauguration.  It's maddening to see this twit out there rolling this issue to pander to moderate and lefty New York voters and think he's the frontrunner.   It's a subject that should not be 'used' for anything, it should be investigated like everything else.  

It's equally maddening to see Bill Clinton poised for a THIRD TERM in the White House after everything that has occurred since he left, stuff partially caused by his failures to stop AQ from growing during the 90s, as "path to 9/11" indicated.  The media?   They do not care about objective truth they care about the coronation of his wife as the first woman president because they love her and the concept of her.  This despite her disqualifying display of ineptness and lack of judgment in the personal server story alone (Benghazi not included).   The fight has basically been lost.  But here's one more attempt to pass along some rational thought.

John Schindler: why we need to discuss more than just Saudi Arabia.   

Transparency Clinton Style

Say what you will about the bizarre spectacle that is the GOP primary, the primary alternative continues to display her own special clown act.  Here's an example of where she thinks the public deserves transparency...

Hillary Clinton says barring any national security risk, she would like to open up the government files on Area 51 to the public if she is elected president. “I would like us to go into those files and hopefully make as much of that public as possible,” she told Jimmy Kimmel Thursday night on his late night ABC talk show. “If there’s nothing there, let’s tell people there’s nothing there.”

And here's a situation where she doesn't think the public deserves transparency:

The previously undisclosed February 2009 emails between Clinton from her then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, raise new questions about the scope of emails from Clinton’s early days in office that were not handed over to the State Department for record keeping and may have been lost entirely. Clinton’s presidential campaign has previously claimed that the former top diplomat did not use her personal "clintonemail.com" account before March 2009, weeks after she was sworn in as secretary of State.

Pretty telling, eh?  No wonder the kids like Bernie. 

In the meantime, video is making the rounds of a national security stemwinder Mrs Clinton puffed out recently in the shadow of Brussels wherein she compares her steady leadership against Trump's when it comes to kicking some terrorist arse and gathering our friends to help.

And such a strategy might be an effective, especially if propped up by the media, except for one thing--most of what she's talking about doing are things Obama is currently NOT doing, and she was an integral part of his administration when the Arab Spring in Syria gave rise to ISIS.   

But Obama is trying to help.  He's been slow-rolling his fight against the JV squad since 2012 but lately it seems progress is being made with the loss of their number two and the counter-attack to recapture Mosul underway.  The Syrian Army is retaking parts of their country after a dose of Putey Poot.  ISIS may indeed be on the run now.  All of this may time out perfectly for November. 

But again, not so fast.  There are still ISIS cells in Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere, plus thousands of radicalized wannabees sprinkled around the globe.  Obama will have to answer to his policy of "Assad must go" if Assad becomes more firmly entrenched.  That's his legacy problem, but nobody will really care.  But Libya?  That's on Hillary.  Which is low-hanging fruit for a player like Trump.

Winning!

This picture Drudge put up today is certainly a classic.

Is there any other picture that better captures the Obama foreign policy?  He's got the slight head-up tilt with the subtle s**t-eating grin knowing he's standing in front of a massive picture of the murdering Che while knowing he's supremely ticking off some of his real enemies in the process.  Even if he's not consciously doing so, it fits.  

But there he is, standing at attention representing the imperialist racist nation he's spent the last seven years tying to reform through 'hope and change'.  That change was moving America away from a country that stood firm before tyrants and tinpots to one that feels their pain and never has a discouraging word.   Imagine how Obama would have treated Saddam Hussein.  Then consider how he treats the Tea Party and most Republicans.  Ask Dinesh D'Souza who the true enemy is.   

Now, there's nothing wrong with reaching out, as Nixon did with China, as Reagan did with the Soviets.   But there is something to be said for maintaining national dignity and not giving away the store while doing so.  That includes not standing there grinning in front of a f*cking Che mural.

Some may say this is just a strategy.  Super smart three-dimensional chess Obama is just playing the commies.  Well OK, but it needs to work.  Consider that China and Vietnam are still communist countries.  Donald Trump is getting a lot of traction talking about how China is manipulating their currency at our expense.  'Success' isn't just cheap electronic stuff.  Hopefully.  

No doubt the Chamber of Commerce types were among the biggest supporters of this outreach, who if asked will blow the trumpet about how these new markets will foster freedom while the dictator continues to round up dissidents.   Actually, the people who stand to gain most from this new declaration of surrender rapprochement aren't the average Cubans, it's corporate America, who are stumbling all over themselves trying to get down there.

One might think Democrats would not support this kind of thing in principle, but they have one prime principle and it's called 'winning'.  Getting there is all part of those hazy shades of flexible gray.  To them winning is helping their guy here.  But stand back and look and it almost seems, in the hazy gray mist, that there's a tad bit too much warm fuzzy to some of the support, something kinda Bill Ayers-ish.  Maybe it depends on the definition of winning.   

Pipe Dreams and other things

Donald Trump recently said it-- Bush lied!   And that's odd, since his likely opponent Hillary Clinton has never out and out called Bush a liar on Iraq.  With that in mind, Instapundit links a slick video featuring Judith Miller explaining why Bush didn't lie about Iraq...


It's sad such a video has to be made because it was obvious to any informed person that Bush didn't lie.  Grossly misunderestimate the Butcher?  Panic a little after 9/11?  Worry about being blamed for follow on attacks traced to Iraqi material or know-how?  Yes, yes and yes. 

But in a world where people will willingly raise their right hands and swear allegiance to Donald Trump or vote for an outright socialist who thinks everything should basically be free, people will believe anything

Of course the Miller video will never be believed by those who believe Bush lied, but some of us will never stop trying to speak truth to power. 

So here's a flashback to current Vice President Joe Biden discussing Iraq and the lie meme with the late Tim Russert back in 2007, with added emphasis:

MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

This was the same Joe Biden who said Iraq would be a wonderful victory for America when Obama pulled everyone out in 2011. Joe knows some things about Saddam. So does Hillary. She knows what her husband knows. Neither have ever claimed Bush lied.  They just let that sleeping dog lie because they know it's the gift that keeps giving.  But they dare not go very far down the path. 

Mrs Clinton's adviser John Podesta recently said he wants reporters to ask her about UFOs. He says people can 'handle the truth'. Well maybe, unless it's this truth.  But people can handle all kinds of truths.  Get some knowledgeable people to ask her about Saddam. If they catch her unprepared with the right questions it might change the election.

Meaning of the word 'is' again

History repeats.  That's basically what the Clintons are doing on this email scandal, same playbook as Monica.   Define an issue down to legal terms, use legal parsing to craft disingenuous replies, then look in the camera with the best serious face and blame a vast right wing conspiracy.

Can't blame them, it worked before, largely with the same breed of media.  Even tonight one of Clinton's main flacks was on Megyn Kelly's show defending the indefensible, and with vigor and gusto. It's all they've got.  But with a helpful (or even lackadaisical) media not riling up the muddy middle swing voters with saturation coverage, it's not beyond succeeding. 

Meanwhile, getting to wherever we're going on this is already an exercise in the bizarre.  Hillary likes to say she never 'sent or received email that was classified at the time'.  She also likes to say that no organization is too big to fail and no person is too big to jail.  She even said some of this wearing black and white striped pants suits.  Does she even get the irony there?   Or is she just rubbing it in?
 
She is the smartest woman in the world, after all.

Back in reality where chief gumshoe James Comey works (he of Ashcroft hospital drama fame) the stakes are high.  Comey has a legacy as a straight shooter and lefty hero for challenging the evil, constitution crapping imperial president Bushco, but he's got some new cards to play now. Will he play them fairly?  If he recommends indictment and Lynch blows it off, will he resign out of protest?  Or will he see the lucrative FBI position, stretching well into the next president's tenure, as something to protect and serve?  Cough, "I did all I could", sigh, let's move on to ISIS.  No protest leaves the media wide open to carry Hillary's water all the way to the next set of Roman columns. 

My guess is Comey won't fizzle out on principle and we may see something sooner than later.  The more the FBI drags this out the more primary wins Hillary can accumulate, then claim that any FBI investigation is purely partisan and interfering with a national election. There would be some precedence in that, too.  So maybe we'll see something this weekend. 

MORE  1/31/16

The something we saw this weekend was nothing.  So, it appears the FBI is going to let the voters caucus on Monday and beyond before taking any action.  

So here's more wild speculation.  After she's won a primary or three, if FBI moves to indict her the campaign will throw up a flag and cry foul, claiming the FBI is trying to impede an election.   When the right reacts as they predictably will (loud and boisterous) the Clinton machine will attack them as making a phony scandal out of an honest 'mistake'.   That's probably where the press will kick into top gear on the story, jumping in with the historic Mrs Rodham Clinton's campaign, helping her douse the fire before moving the rubes on to other preferred narratives, like the war on women.  It would help is some big breaking story came along to feed that, but surely one can be arranged.

Meanwhile the GOP will wither under the attacks and demand people 'move on' to the substantive issues facing the country, etc etc.

The only wildcard in that scenario is Trump.      

Investigation Update

With all the hoopla over Hillary's emails and Obama's Iran deal, one story has completely been buried--the Stuxnet leak on Iran. Back when Holder was holding fort at DOJ he promised to get to the bottom of a leak about Stuxnet to the New York Times, appointing US Attorney for Maryland Rod Rosenstein to handle the case.

This was way back in 2012--the leak was basically in support of Obama's reelection campaign. Dribs and drabs of information would occasionally bubble out over the years, but in small quantities. Few cared.

Eventually in 2013 we were told the prime person of interest was "Obama's favorite general" retired 4 star Hoss Cartwright. Indeed he was. But then the story went cold again.

Then just recently we learned that Cartwight's case was more or less put on hold because it could have potentially interfered with the peace in our time Iran nuke deal.  Who made that call, by the way?   Obama has said the Attoney General's office is completely independent. 

The president has also bragged about his administration's severe handling of leakers and those who violate their security oaths. Lower level people have been sent to jail. The Defense Department is contemplating a move to reduce the rank of General Petraeus ex post facto. But we have Cartwright's case still in limbo? Did he leak or not? The Iran deal is done, where's the update?

Yeah, but it's all legal and stuff

The Wall St Journal's article about Obama's spying on the dangerous terrorist Bibi Netanyahu has illustrated the slippery slope of the NSA's 702 collection program.  Yes, there should be some admission on the right that such a thing could occur.  Meanwhile, lefties who were once outraged at such things are using the legality to justify Boehner, McConnell and other congressmen getting caught up in a snooping program designed to stop Israel from stopping the ridiculous non-binding, non-treaty with actual terrorists dressed in Mullah suits. 

It's worth a look back at 2007 to see how far things have tumbled down the slope..

When the going gets tough...

Hillary today:

"As I said this week, America must wage and win an immediate battle against ISIS, al Qaeda, and other terrorist networks, as well as a generational struggle against radical jihadism," Clinton added. "We face a choice between fear and resolve. Anita's murder should deepen our resolve. America must lead the world to meet this threat."

Hillary in 2011, as Secretary of State:

“In Iraq, almost 100,000 troops have come home and civilians are poised to keep the peace. In Afghanistan, integrated military and civilian surges have helped set the stage for our diplomatic surge to support Afghan-led reconciliation that can end the conflict and put al Qaeda on the run. We have imposed the toughest sanctions yet to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

So now Hillary talks tough about how we need to steel up and beat the terrorists, the same terrorists her policies were supposed to put on the run.  But she knows Americans have short memories, and she knows liberal journalists aren't about to do any reminding.

Paris

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

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

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

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

If it was a bomb...

The determination of what brought down Metrojet 7K-9268  has not yet been made, but everyone has seen the leaks coming from western intelligence pointing to a bomb.   So let's assume for a moment it was a bomb.

And let's assume it was planted by an operator on behalf of ISIS, due to the Russian connection.

Who might be the mastermind?   We know AQ has some good bombmakers.  AQAP's al-Asiri is notorious and a highly sought after drone target.  We know of bombmakers in the Khorasan Group in Syria (otherwise known as Core AQ).  One was reportedly just killed.   But we haven't heard of many bombmaker geniuses populating the ranks of ISIS.

What about this guy?    He's a little old, yes, but passing knowledge would be his main contribution.  He's a long-time resident of Iraq, still wanted years after creating a bomb that was placed on a Pan Am 747 flying to Honolulu in 1982.  At the time he was also working on a plot to bomb multiple aircraft before the plot was fortunately foiled.  This was years before the Yousef/KSM "Bojinka" plot was uncovered.   The Saddam government likely knew about this activity and looked the other way meaning they sanctioned it, for what it's worth. 

Ironically, ISIS is filled with ex-Saddamists.  Al-Umari is a Sunni loyalist, no doubt.  Many of the ex-Saddamists have taught their jihadist partners a few tricks of their former terror trade, which has resulted in a new, improved terrorist army featuring many of the same enemies Saddam had.  The only difference is the new group wears religious hats and dons beards.  

So it sounds reasonable to assume he might be working with them now if he's still active in the game.  At any rate, the United States has put up 5 million bucks in an effort to get this old man off the Arab streets, so they must have a good reason.   

MORE  11/9/15

One thing to note.  It's a bit strange how quickly and adamantly that "unnamed US security officials" have declared this a bomb.  Here's yet another story.  Even in the story the officials claim they are not directly involved in the investigation.  Others say they have terrorist chatter in the NSA intercepts, but that's something they will never release due to security.   Compare all that to the other mysterious aircraft crashes over the past 20 years, wherein officials went out of their way to deny terrorism was even possible.   Obviously a political component needs to be suspected.   This still could have been a mechanical issue.    

Aviation Update

Another passenger jet falls out of the sky at cruising altitude.  This is getting a bit weird.

Weird or not, the loved ones of those lost on Metrojet flight 7K-9268 deserve a factual investigation.   Lots of speculation now as in every aviation disaster--early claims of terrorism by the terrorists should be taken with a grain of salt until more facts are established.  That said, claims by officials should also be scrutinized for accuracy.  They may be lying (for a variety of reasons) or just bungling the facts.

For instance, there is already confusion about the final minutes of the flight.  Many news sources are reporting something similar to this:

Ayman al-Muqadem, an Egyptian official with the government's Aviation Incidents Committee, said air controllers lost contact with the plane’s pilot after he radioed that the aircraft was experiencing technical problems and that he needed to make an emergency landing.

At the same time the Egyptian "Civil Aviation Authority" has said that communications were normal until the moment the aircraft disappeared off radar scopes, giving no indication of any technical issue. 

The above is very easy to confirm since it should be available on ATC voice tapes. It will also be on CVR recordings and we know both CVR and FDR were recovered. The distinction is critical in this case since it could mark the difference between sabotage or terrorism, ie, the plane suddenly disappeared as in the MH17 shootdown case, or a plane having issues and in crippled flight, trying to find a place to land before catastrophic failure occurred.

At any rate, this does not appear to similar to a TWA-800 type event since the aircraft was confirmed to be at an altitude where only sophisticated anti-aircraft systems can go as with MH17. If the plane was shot down using such a system it was either inadvertent or something very troubling.  But there's a ways to go before anyone should be reaching such a conclusion based on open source info.

SPEAKING OF 800..  11/2/15

Here's an interesting comment in a WaPo article on the doomed flight:

Modern planes don’t usually fall apart in flight, barring an explosion caused by a bomb or missile..

Indeed.

HEAT SIGNATURE  11/3/15

This is now being reported:

CBS News' national security correspondent David Martin reports a U.S. infrared satellite detected a heat flash over the Sinai at the time the Russian plane went down. The data is still being analyzed in an effort to determine what caused the flash. One possibility is a bomb, but an explosion in a fuel tank or engine as the result of a mechanical failure is also possible.

Since it almost surely has to be associated with the jet it would seem to rule out a sudden structural failure of the hull due to the old tail-strike repair, as some in the aviation business are guessing.   It also seems to line up with the video shown by ISIS propagandists.   At the same time, it doesn't completely rule out a mechanical issue.  An uncontained engine failure could blow parts out of the turbine and perhaps cause some kind of flash of heat, especially if it somehow caused a fuel fire.

That said, if the ISIS video is real then why would someone be randomly photographing a passing jet at over 30,000 feet?   It's not as if the photographer heard something and began filming (since the speed of sound would prevent that anyway) or saw something and began filming (video shows a jet before a small explosion).  

These questions can probably be easily answered by analyzing the aircraft debris for explosive residue and performing autopsies on the victims.  Whether this analysis comes out anytime soon is another question entirely.  It may depend on the conclusion.  Lots at stake for Egypt, Russia, the airline, the victims' families, and perhaps regional security.   

Classified Relativism

The NY Times has an interesting feature today on former diplomat Robin Raphel, charged last year with delivering classified information to Pakistan.  Why interesting?  Because, as the story notes, the case against Raphel has "fizzled".  Hmm, as the bloggers say.

The Times goes on to mention numerous figures on the right and left who've been involved in mishandling classified information--yes, even Hillary.  For some reason they forgot to mention "Obama's favorite general" Hoss Cartwright, a person of interest in leaking Stuxnet intelligence on Iran to the media.  At last check that had fizzled due to complexities with the Iran nuke deal or something. 

That aside, it's been well-reported that the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers than all other administrations combined, mostly lower level folks.  The Times article notes that current FBI Director James Comey was a little upset with the Justice Department's deal with General Petraueus as they feared it might set precedence for future cases--indeed that's exactly what Raphel's defense team seems to be doing.  But who cares about Raphel, right?  How does this relate to anything else?     

The cynic might say this points in one direction--the Clinton server in Chappaqua.  The cynic might also say the left needs a way to dumb-down the severity of mishandling classified information with their leading 2016 hopeful in the situation she's in.  So, have the media point to the relativism of past prosecutions and make everything muddy with hopes the peeps can get past such peccadillos worthy of putting lesser luminaries in Leavenworth.  Is that what's going on here?   

By the way, in a previous mention here of Ms Raphel there was a link to this 1996 LA Times story.  It's truly one of those "must-reads" from the past that shines light on how messed up things got later.  A snip, emphasis added:

And a Taliban official, Shirmohammed Stanekzai, gave public assurances this week that under the Islamic militia's rule, this country will no longer serve as a training ground or haven for foreign extremists. "As the Islamic movement of Taliban, we don't want to interfere in others' affairs," Stanekzai said. "We don't want to send people to create problems in other countries."

If foreign terrorists fall into the Taliban's hands, he said, "we will punish them hard."

Such words--uttered at a news conference for the foreign media, which have flocked to Kabul since the Taliban captured this capital last Friday--will be sweet music for officials in Washington. Combating terrorism and the global trade in narcotics are leading items on the U.S. foreign policy agenda.

The current conspiracy theories are understandable, even plausible, given the great mystery that still shrouds the Taliban's rise and rapid advance. How did a ragtag force that emerged in late 1994 among Muslim religious students in the southern region of Kandahar and adjacent areas of Pakistan grow so quickly that two years later, it has become master of three-quarters of Afghanistan?

Who paid for its weaponry, ammunition and vehicles? Who organized its training and logistics? Is intelligence or military assistance received from outside one of the reasons the Taliban has enjoyed astonishing, and relatively bloodless, successes over experienced moujahedeen commanders who, for nearly a decade, fought occupying Soviet troops?

Generous support for the Taliban from Pakistan, which wants to pacify its war-racked neighbor for its own strategic and economic motives, has been well documented. But is Pakistan's powerful ally, the United States, also involved in some way? Many in Kabul believe so, though again, their proof is circumstantial.

Notice the LAT refers to it as a conspiracy theory, but who remembers hearing that the Clinton administration propped up the Taliban back before 9/11?  Surely Ms Raphel has a memory of it.  Maybe she has a book in her?   And maybe Robert Redford can do another "truth" movie about this whole thing... maybe get Valerie Plame to star as Ms Raphel.  If they get to work soon they can have it out right after Hillary gets the nomination.  

Not Your Day..

Good Lord...

Aside from a cop driving around drunk, which is bad enough, they posted that picture with the headline.  Does he need any further punishment?         

Good News or Bad News?

It's tempting to lay this story on the Obama people.  After all, they just made a nuclear deal with a country that has apparently released five top AQ operatives being held under house arrest in exchange for one of their diplomats captured in Yemen by AQ.

It sounds bad.  It may end up being bad.  But there's a slim possibility it's not all bad.  Iran has released AQ operatives under house arrest before, including bin Laden's son Saad, some of whom were later killed or captured.   One of the Khorasan members operating in Syria and recently killed were previously held in Iran as well. 

A lot depends on how this deal was done.  Evidently they were negotiating with someone in AQ, who had the Iranian diplomat under control somewhere.  And the five operatives have apparently not been swapped to anyone, only released from their house arrest.  They may still be in Iran, or may be trying to sneak away.  

But if there was a deal done, say a side deal as part of Iran's agreement to the nuke deal (and us freeing up over a billion they can use to fund their own proxy terrorists), this may have been the way it was done.  Obviously Iran cannot be seen handing over AQ terrorists to AQ nor can the West be seen making deals with terrorist masters for other terrorist hostages in exchange for more money for their own terrorists.         

So the jury is still out.  If there was a deal it's probably not unprecedented--Pakistan evidently took out a long-wanted AQ operative in their country last year only days after a Pakistani general came to Washington to collect on millions in aid money for the Pakistani Army.    Adnan el-Shukrijumah was a reported high level operative, pilot, and someone the government called very dangerous.  He had been wanted since 9/11 (according to the FBI he is still wanted).  Then suddenly after some money changed hands he was reported to be pushing up daisies.  Funny how that works.  

But that's the way this entire war on terrorism has worked...bodies of lies interspersed within truths and half-truths.  It appears some countries are not only holding US citizens and other westerners as hostages, but also holding AQ members for ransom as well.  Maybe Iran got what they wanted in the deal and part of it was them quietly releasing all their AQ hole cards so we can have access to kill them.

Or maybe this is just another in-your-face-Obama move by the Ayatollahs after they got their deal, like sending General Quds Force to Moscow to make a deal with Putin on Assad in Syria while knowing our position is that he 'must go'.  Or telling the press that Israel will be gone in 25 years, praise Allah, death to America.  Guess we will see.

About those Syrian Refugees

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

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

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

MORE 9/13/15

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

Hillary emails: Not Really About Classified

Is the former Secretary of State in hot water due to possibly trafficking classified emails on her private email system?  News coverage seems to be trending that direction.  But it could also be a huge red herring.   The FBI is now involved, what if they come back in say January and announce that no evidence was found of her illegally moving classified documents?

Yes, that will effectively 'clear' her in the minds of those who carve the American narrative (and you know you they are).  Hillary will sail forward to the nomination calling anyone who brings up the matter a hater or worse and she will be bolstered by her high profile supporters, otherwise known as mainstream journalists.

That's why people need to take a step back and focus.

The issue is not just classified emails.  Finding zero evidence of classified docs doesn't clear her.  Her crime is conducting government business entirely on a private server she controlled!   Based on rules and good ethics practices alone it basically an illegal network.  She literally told the American public to pound sand--she was going to have her own State Dept IT department and run her business off the grid, not reachable by FOIA or Congress or even some in the administration. 

And when it came time to turn over government-related emails to the archivists, she and she alone got to decide what was relevant and what went to the bit bucket.   And that HAD TO BE by design.  And that design had to be approved by the President of the United States, where bucks are supposed to go to stop.

And this same person is running to control everything.