Who Will Follow Up On This?

Granted, the bulk of the documents that Wikileaks has obtained are largely speculative and need further investigation, one segment that Wired is reporting on merits some follow-up.

according to one of the WikiLeaks logs, Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security got a tip about the man at the very top of the most wanted list: Osama Bin Laden himself. The informant said that Bin Laden “had been transported to Peshawar hospital in Pakistan for treatment, where he has died.”

“NDS stressed that this was a single source report and had not been verified,” the log added. No other document in the WikiLeaks trove appears to corroborate this. So it looks like just another piece of RUMINT in a war full of it.

RUMINT is short for "rumored intelligence". But even rumors of this sort need to be looked into, especially considering that Benazir Bhutto, a woman with intimate knowledge of the happenings in her region, stated back in 2007 that Bin Laden had been murdered.

Let's postulate on why this piece of intel wasn't seriously researched. Firstly, it would put a massive dent into the Bush administration's desire to continue fighting in Afghanistan, even though his tenure would end less than 2 years later. Secondly, and more than likely most importantly, the Bush administration couldn't possibly admit that a foreign country had accomplished something that he had loudly and all too often boasted about American forces doing.

There have been theories and rumors that Bin Laden had died much earlier than 2007, but none had been substantiated by anyone of prominence like Benazir Bhutto. All previous speculations were framed in the context of tin-foil hat nutjob nonsense. As for me, this needs to be seriously reviewed and have proper context be revealed to the American public. After all, this is the most wanted man in the world we are talking about. But considering how this has been completely ignored since 2007, there's going to have to be a great deal of explaining why so many have been so silent.

Another Capture

Score another victory for the law enforcement approach to the "war on terror".

Authorities say two New Jersey men who intended to kill American troops were arrested at a New York City airport before boarding flights on their way to join a jihadist group in Somalia.

Federal authorities say 20-year-old Mohamed Mahmood Alessa and 24-year-old Carlos Eduardo Almonte were arrested Saturday at John F. Kennedy Airport before they could board separate flights to Egypt and then continue on to Somalia.

Alessa, of North Bergen, and Almonte, of Elmwood Park, were charged with conspiring to commit an act of international terrorism.

However, watch for conservatives to call this a victory for the Bush administration simply because of the timeline.

Teams of state and federal law enforcement agents who have been investigating Alessa and Almonte since 2006 took them into custody. They are scheduled to appear Monday in federal court in Newark.

And let's say they do call this a victory - will they be admitting that a law enforcement approach to fighting those would commit terrorist attacks is a better approach than a military one? We all know that conservatives despise that. I'm going to say that this will be a muted response from conservatives and Fox"News".

Some Thoughts For Your Morning

- Conservatives believe that everything in the world should be neatly compartmentalized, that everything has to be able to fall into a commercialized graphic so that we can utilize it in how we live our day to day lives. Their approach to our enemies is a great example of this. So, when John Brennan put our fight against our enemies into context, conservatives were simply unable to accept the reality laid bare before them since it completely destroyed their neatly arranged marketing set.

- I seems that there's more "evidence" that Nikki Haley - candidate for governor of South Carolina - did have an affair. I'm wondering when her apologists will make enough noise that she will get a full hour of attention from Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck on Fox"News" in order to do some serious damage control. You know it's coming.

- While I am completely in favor of immigration reform and laws that crack down on businesses that hire illegals and literally use them as near slave labor, I'm wondering why conservatives are treating this as vindication for Arizona's over-reaching law.

- With Republicans aching to regain control of The House Of Representatives, there are several bloggers ( myself included ) that feel if they do they will do nothing but try to bring about articles of impeachment. Don't expect them to make any headway, and progress ( because that's the root word for progressive, you know ) for this country - it's all about doing their best to destroy Obama.

- It seems that Sue Lowden isn't distancing herself from comments made by fellow Tea Bagger Rand Paul. In this respect, conservatives are much like an ostrich - just hide your face from the problem and it doesn't exist.

Another One Down

With headlines like this, one has to wonder what conservatives are thinking.

Mulvi Kabir, the former Taliban governor in Afghanistan's Nangahar Province, and a key figure in the Taliban regime was recently captured in Pakistan, two senior US officials tell Fox News. Kabir, considered to be among the top ten most wanted Taliban leaders, was apprehended in the Naw Shera district of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province by Pakistani police forces in recent days.

A senior U.S. military official in Afghanistan called Kabir a “significant detention."

The intelligence that led to Kabir's capture was gathered from Mullah Baradar, the Taliban’s second in command, who was picked up roughly two weeks ago in Karachi, Pakistan by a joint CIA and Pakistani intelligence operation.

That's right, actionable and apparently accurate intel from someone we captured two weeks ago. And I can almost guarantee that he wasn't tortured.

Hey Mark Theissen, care to explain why your boy Bush couldn't accomplish in 8 years what Obama has done in one month?

Fox"News" and conservatives around the country are being rather mute on this because they realize that the actions of the Obama administration and it's position on the "War On Terror" completely invalidate their reactionary, fear-mongering, claims.

Shorter Allahpundit

How exactly did the U.S. catch the Taliban’s number two?

Let's see, how can I make this Obama administration success look more like something shady? Anyone up for some rank speculation? After all, we can't admit that Obama is taking a strong stance on this War On Terror, because he's making our boy W look bad.

A Victory That Will Be Ignored

At least by the conservative media - or they'll claim this as a Bush victory.

WASHINGTON — The Taliban’s top military commander was captured several days ago in Karachi, Pakistan, in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and American intelligence forces, according to American government officials.

The commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is an Afghan described by American officials as the most significant Taliban figure to be detained since the American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s founder and a close associate of Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The question has been asked by several as to why this wasn't possible under the Bush administration, but the larger point is whether or not this will be seen as a victory.

Fox"News" has all of their chips riding on the hope that the Obama administration will be an abject failure, and this flies directly in everyone of their smarmy little grins. I hope they choke on it.

So Now It's A Victory?

Curious featured headline this morning on Fox"Nation" that signals the withdrawal of Marines from Baghdad as a "victory".

The U.S. Marine Corps wrapped nearly seven years in Iraq on Saturday, handing over duties to the Army and signaling the beginning of an accelerated withdrawal of American troops as the U.S. turns its focus away from the waning Iraqi war to a growing one in Afghanistan.

Wasn't this referred to as defeat every time it was proposed by anyone? Why the sudden change of heart in wingnutia? I'm guessing that this will be considered a "success" of the Bush administration before the end of the week.

The Dithering Bloom Of Bush/Cheney

In a recent conversation on Twitter with @AnUnlikelySaint, I pointed out that as recently as last year, Bush/Cheney did not answer a call for more troops in Afghanistan. My assertion, back up by a report in McClatchy which I blogged about yesterday, is solidified with new information coming from Admiral Micheal Mullen

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed back in a fact-checking dispute with former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asserting that the Bush administration objected rejected a Pentagon request for more troops for Afghanistan last year.

Adm. Michael Mullen told a House committee Wednesday that Gen. David McKiernan, who led U.S. troops in Afghanistan between 2008 and this year, had asked for 20,000 troops for the effort but was rebuffed.

“We didn’t have them because they were pushed to Iraq,” the four-star admiral said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in response to a question from Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence. “That was the priority of the president.”

The conservative base, now faced with the reality that the Bush administration largely ignored Afghanistan in favor of attempting to nation-build in Iraq, are completley unwilling to recognize the failure that they had once claimed liberal/progressive Democrats embraced.

But while many who watched Obama's speech at West Point considered Obama's statement about troop requests and his patience on issuing another ( his first was in March - the one that Bush/Cheney ignored ) was directed at Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought it was all about him:

Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as secretary of defense, deserves a response. I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006. If any such requests occurred, "repeated" or not, the White House should promptly make them public. The President's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan.

But there is one problem with Rumsfeld's statement, he was the Sec. of Defense when this happened - it was Robert Gates, the man that is still holds the position today. And while conservatives will attempt to use this as a "well it's not really Bush/Cheney's fault, is it" defense, the reality of the matter is that Bush/Cheney have authority over Gates just as they had authority over Rumsfeld.

In the end, this whole concept of "dithering" by Obama is a non-starter. The best decision was made with a far more solid plan than at any time during the Bush administration, who largely ignored the mission in Afghanistan.

The Undefinable

Conservatives love to banter endlessly about a variety of subjects with which they are either completely unfamiliar ( ie: climate change ) or do know just enough about to be exceedingly dangerous.

Now that Obama has delivered his strategy address to the nation, it's time for those same conservatives to run around to every show they can get booked on and distribute the latest ream of talking points. Chief of which are ones about "success".

John McCain, the Senator who has graced more Sunday morning talk-shows since the election than just about anyone ever has, has sent in a piece to Mary Katherine Ham of the Weekly Standard blog.

The title of the article ( likely written by staffers and not McCain, hence byline "form the desk of John McCain" - like it's some memo about remembering to send out your Christmas cards ) speaks about how "success" is the real exit strategy.

Success is the real exit strategy. When we have achieved our goals in Afghanistan, our troops should begin to return home with honor, but that withdrawal should be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary deadlines. In the days ahead, I will seek to address this and other questions I have about the President’s policy, including my continuing concern about the civilian aspect of our strategy.

The whole piece is just like that, glittering generalities that we have heard since the beginning. No real meat, just enough filler to make it look like he has some real idea, some real concept that people can get behind. But I do have one question - what is "success".

Ever since Bush dragged our attention and focus away from Afghanistan and said that Iraq is the place to be, there have been multiple definitions of what "failure" is, but no definition of "success". There really hasn't even been a final goal that could be even loosely construed as attainable shown to the American public. It's all been about failure. Every discussion from the Right has been born from the catalyst of failure.

When people like McCain hear "exit strategy" they don't realize that even if there is "success", there would still have to be a strategy on how our forces leave. Were there just going to not worry about that until this illusive and mysterious "success" just happened one day and then worry about how to bring our men and women home? I wouldn't put that past them.

What we need to be asking our elected officials is simple - tell us what "success" in Afghanistan is, and be specific.

Beatdown

This was probably my favorite part of Obama's speech last night, as it took Dick Cheney to task over his "dithering" comment that conservatives have eagerly lapped-up like so much sweet candy.



Obama, though not calling out Dick Cheney directly as he should have, was responding to this:



And reports are coming in now that it was, in point of fact, Cheney that was the Dithering Darth Vader of the White House. McClatchy is reporting that Cheney and the Bush White House sat on simular Afghanistan plans for 8 months, and it was Obama that ended up implementing those plans.

Shorter Dick Cheney

Cheney Goes After Obama On Afganistan

I'm hoping that the fact that myself and George W. Bush largely ignored this particular conflict isn't going to matter to you. But let's also not forget that I was never part of the Executive or Legislative branches of government, therefor I cannot be held responsible for the lack of understanding and support of the mission in Afganistan from 2001 until 2008 - which you are still instructed to never mention in public. In summation, I rule, Obama drools. Thank you.

Joe Knows Talking Points

Joe Scarborough will believe anything that will make him favorable, albeit momentarily, with both parties.

Since Dick Cheney is getting so much face-time now, he's going to play with the conservative base and run with the "Obama has made the coutnry less safe" meme.



Here's why you can't rely on what Dick Cheney or Joe Scarborough have to say about the "safety" of America. They have no proof that what they did or what Barack Obama's administration is doing has made the country any less or any more safe. They cite these mysteriously vague statistical percentages that simply don't match up with the data that is readily available.

The main thesis statement of the Bush administration is that America was safer because they "tortured", because of the "Patriot Act", rendition, removing habeas corpus, and more importantly because they said so. They expected us to believe them and no question, for one second, that what they were postulating just might not be true.

Dick Cheney isn't going to go away, and he certainly isn't going to change his mind about what he and George W. Bush have done to this country. We can uncover all the evidence that is out there that proves their tactics did more to damage the credibility of America, as well as not improve national security, and he will still say that he was right.

And as long as Dick says it, Joe will parrot it back.

More from Media Matters

Why Not Ask An Interrogator

So many conservative "prime timers" and radio prattle-heads love to talk about "torture" and how they are so certain that it works. Have they ever talked to an actualy interrogator to see what they thought? No.

John Stewart has.

Matthew Alexander (not his real name) is a fourteen year Air Force vet who served as an interrogator in Iraq, and he's written a book called How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq. Last night, Alexander made an appearance on The Daily Show, where he made a powerful case for the superior efficacy of not torturing people during interrogations.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Matthew Alexander

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

You see, a comedy show has more journalistic integrity than anything on Fox

High-Profile Targets As Election Weapons

When there started to be "too much press" regarding Prince Harry's deployment to Afganistan, he was removed. The reason given was that he would be a "danger to his unit". If that line comes across as a bit disingenuous, it's because it is. Prince Harry was removed because he is who he is - a member of the British Royal Family.

The crew over at HotAir and Malkin's site are abuzz this afternoon over video footage of Sarah Palin "handling" a heckler.

Not that this is something that politicians haven't done before, but it could be classified as moderately unique if only for the reason that Palin's son was recently deployed to Iraq.



The "folksy" schtick is going to end up being her ultimate downfall. But, that's not reporting anything new to anyone.

The problem with her response is that her son will most likely not see combat. The other problem is that it's not just her son "fighting", it's also Joe Biden's son. But, there again, Joe's son will more than likely not see combat. Why is that? The same reason that Prince Harry was removed from Afganistan.

High Profile Targets.

Though Track Palin's deployment was played-out as such:

Once in Iraq, Palin's son will provide security for his brigade commander and deputy commander, said Major Chris Hyde, Public Information Officer for the 1st Stryker Brigade.

Hyde said Track Palin has not sought out special treatment, calling him a "low-key guy" who rarely mentions being the son of the governor.

Like others in the brigade, Palin's son will ride in a Stryker vehicle.

source

He won't have to mention it. It's been all over the news, on blogs, on radio. His mother doesn't appear to be as "low-key" about it.

Of course Track doesn't want to let everyone know who he is. If my mother were making such a fool of herself in front of the entire world, and I were deployed as an active-duty solider, it wouldn't take much for me to feel more than a little uncomfortable about my situation.

Is it likely that Track will fight? How about Joe Biden's son? It's not particularly clear at this point, but i'm betting that they will be home without seeing combat at all.

Sarah Palin didn't score any extra points with her response. The conservative media will spend more time focusing on this than on issues of substance.

Oh Yeah, We've Still Got Troops In Afgansitan, Don't We!

Click to see video of George W. Bush

We’re constantly reviewing troop needs, troop levels. We’re halfway through 2008; as I said, we’re going to increase troops by 2009. One thing, however, that you got to understand is that we have doubled Afghan troops — coalition troops have doubled from two years ago. So there is an active presence and there are more troops there than there were. But we’re constantly reassessing and seeing whether or not we can change tactics in order to achieve our objective.

The Surge : The Sequal!!!

Well, not really a 'sequal' per say, but actually putting resources where they should have been in the first place.

The Bush administration, so intent on diverting our attention away from Afganistan, the Taliban, and bin Laden ( is he even still around? ), has perpetrated a battle-field faliure so vast in scale that an entire generation will forever refer to this as "our Vietnam".

The lack of planning, vision - and some would say competence - has allowed the Taliban and Al Qeada to reconstitue.

More from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Grappling with a record death toll in an overshadowed war, President Bush promised Wednesday to send more U.S. troops into Afghanistan by year's end. He conceded that June was a "tough month," in fact, the deadliest for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the war began.

"One reason why there have been more deaths is because our troops are taking the fight to a tough enemy, an enemy who doesn't like our presence there because they don't like the idea of America denying safe haven (to terrorists)," Bush told reporters. "Of course there's going to be resistance."

Bush said it was a tough month too for the Taliban. But the once-toppled Islamist regime in Afghanistan has now rebounded with deadly force.

More U.S. and NATO troops have died in the past two months in Afghanistan than in Iraq, a place with triple the number of U.S. and coalition forces.

You're doin a heck-of-a-job W.

If You're Gay, You Can't Support The Troops - Even If You're A Decorated Combat Vet.

"My sexual orientation certainly didn't make a difference when I treated injuries and saved lives in the streets of Baghdad. It shouldn't be a factor in allowing me to continue to serve."

Sargeant Darren Manzella enlisted in 2002 and has been deployed to Iraq twice. He has served openly and told his story to60 Minutes' Lesly Stahl about coming out of the closet to his colleagues and commanding officer, and of serving openly in Kuwait without incident. He was awarded the Combat Medical Badge for treating his fellow soldiers under fire, and also received several other awards recognizing his courage and service.

The Pentagon has discharge Sargeant Manzella not just for being gay, but for proving that being gay and being in the miliary does not hinder your - or your fellow soldier's - ability to serve America.

John McCain recently stated that homosexuals in the military pose a "risk" to the unit that they are assigned to.

With the Republican echo chamber overflowing with the resounding calls of "supporting the troops", it makes one wonder what their definition of 'support' is. Not only that, but they seem to be overtly selective of who's 'support' they will accept.

Sgt. Manzella gave the ultimate support to his fellow soldiers at risk of his own life.

An Air Force Captain, Cholene Espinoza, says of Darren:

“Darren is in a critical field. He’s a medic. His commander needs him. He’s a known quantity. He gets along with others. He does what he’s supposed to. He goes above and beyond. Why do I want to lose Darren?”

See more of Darren's story in his conversations with Lesly Stahl.