Right Wing Nut House

From the looks of things, the government of the United States - you know, the one that is currently fighting a very public and very noisy War on Terror - is playing legal games with the immigration case of one Luis Posada Carriles, a former CIA asset, admitted terrorist, and slimeball of the first order.

Mr. Posada Carriles, 77, entered this country illegally in April of this year and has requested asylum from the government. Both Cuba and Venuezala have different plans for the old spook. They both want to extradite Posada and try him for crimes in their countries. Given the reputation of both Castro and Chavez, my guess is those plans include plenty of truth serum and a long, painful session on the rack. And this represents a huge problem for the US government. Posada knows a lot of the dirty little secrets that the US would rather not have appear on 60 Minutes, or Dateline NBC, or even Entertainment Tonight. Posada knows where a lot of bodies are buried - literally.

He was convicted of blowing up a Cuban airliner in 1976 killing all 73 people aboard. This was at a time when he was still a working CIA asset and FBI informant as declassified files make clear. In the 1980’s, he played a role in the US government’s war against communism in Central America. He was tangentially involved in training El Salvadoran death squads. He helped run guns to the contras in Nicaragua. He assisted with putting down leftists in Guatamala and Honduras. There is also some evidence - circumstantial at best - that he has profited in running drugs. In all of these endeavors, Mr. Posada was of great assistance to the United States government. Although not a paid CIA asset at this time, he worked closely with the agency in all of these countries.

The problem of course, is that there was very little effort made to differentiate between communists and run of the mill moonbat socialists or leftist radicals. In civil war, if you’re not supporting the government, the unfortunate result is that you’re seen as being on the other side. Many innocent people went to their deaths during that bloody period - people who had no ties to communist guerillas but who opposed the repressive methods of their governments. For this, Posada has much to answer for.

Posada’s real interest lay in getting rid of Fidel Castro. A Cuban by birth, he’s made numerous attempts to kill the dictator as well as being involved in several assassination plots. He was convicted in Panama of plotting to kill the Cuban dictator in 2000 and was later pardoned. That’s when he decided to retire and snuck into the United States, hired a lawyer, and evidently now believes he should be rewarded for his service to the government by being granted political asylum.

At a bond hearing in July, the Judge pretty much threw the book at the aging terrorist:

An immigration judge on Monday rejected a request by Luis Posada Carriles to be released on bond, ruling the Cuban exile must remain in detention until his case is resolved.

Judge William L. Abbott cited allegations that Posada is a terror suspect and concerns he would flee if granted bond.

Listing a series of terror allegations against Posada over the years, Abbott said even Posada’s participation in operations against Cuba in the early 1960s could be considered terror under today’s standards.

Abbott’s statement seemed to catch by surprise Posada’s lawyer, Matthew Archambeault, who interpreted it to mean the judge would include the Bay of Pigs invasion — sponsored by the U.S. government — as an act of terror under today’s definition of terrorism.

The judge came down hard on Posada. He said he would likely consider Posada’s conviction in Panama on charges of possessing explosives as a valid prior criminal record barring him from admission to the United States — despite a Panamanian presidential pardon last year that enabled Posada and three other exiles to walk free after being arrested in connection with an alleged plot to kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Under immigration law, a foreign pardon does not protect a foreign national from being denied admission into the country.

The Department of Homeland Security has apparently just recently handed Posada’s attorney a victory of sorts by dropping some subpeonas against the New York Times for notes relating to an interview with the old terrorist in which he admitted setting off a series of bombs at Havanna hotels in 1997 that resulted in the death of 1 Italian tourist and injuring serveral others:

The Department of Homeland Security has dropped subpoenas against The New York Times and one of its writers that sought tapes of an interview with Cuban exile militant Luis Posada Carriles in which Posada admitted masterminding the bombings of tourist sites in Cuba.

Withdrawal of the subpoenas amounted to a victory for the newspaper and for Ann Louise Bardach, who had refused to produce tapes, notes or transcripts related to the 1998 interview. George Freeman, the Times’ attorney, told The Herald Tuesday that Homeland Security ”just withdrew the subpoenas” and that no deal was struck between the newspaper and the government.

”It’s a huge relief,” Bardach said in a telephone interview.

A U.S. Attorney’s Office letter, dated Monday, did not rule out issuing new subpoenas “at a future point in time.

While DHS has filed copies of the articles in court and they’re technically admissable as hearsay evidence, many observers believe that Posada’s attorneys will challenge their legality anyway.

More delays, more foot dragging.

In the meantime, Posada is reportedly suffering from skin cancer and a bad heart. It would appear that the government may be dragging the case out in hopes that the old terrorist will succumb before they have to face what could only be described as a Hobbesian choice; do we extradite him to Venezuala or hand him over to Castro?

Back in May, Castro organized a “spontaneous” demonstration demanding the US hand Posada over to the tender mercies of the Cuban secret police. And President Chavez in Venezuala must be licking his chops at the prospect of getting his hands on Posada. The pure propaganda value of a show trial in which both the United States government and Posada could be put on trial has every leftist in Latin America swooning in anticipation.

In the meantime, our credibility on the terrorism issue is taking a huge hit. Not with the strutting peacock in Caracas or the murderous thug in Havanna, but with governments and citizens in the rest of Latin America. As I said back in May when Posada was first arrested, perception is reality:

There’s no doubt this is a lose-lose situation for the American government. There quite simply can be no good outcome to their dilemma. If we hand the old terrorist over to Chavez, his secret police will go to work on him and probably extract some extraordinarily damaging information about his unholy deeds done on behalf of the American government during the last 40 years. The resulting firestorm would ignite protests from Mexico City to Havana and severely damage our already tarnished image in Latin America.

In this case, I think the Bush Administration is going to have to bite the bullet and hand Posada over to Chavez. Better the strutting peacock than the thug in Havana. Before honoring any extradition treaty with regards to Posada however, the Administration should get an assurance from Chavez that the Venezuelans will not hand him over to Castro. That would truly be a disastrous turn of events and must be prevented.

The people of Latin America are watching this case very closely. And unless we start moving the legal process of Posada’s deportation along, we will leave ourselves wide open to charges of being hypocrites in the War on Terror.

At this point, that’s something we just can’t afford.

Watching Anderson Cooper interview Cindy Sheehan last night brought back fond memories of my childhood. I must have been about 6 years old and my father was taking part in the ageless ritual of teaching his son the finer points of baseball.

It must have looked like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting. Young, tow-headed boy trying to swing a bat that was bigger than he was. The father, standing a few feet away and tossing the ball underhand trying very hard to make hitting the ball very easy, aiming the ball carefully so that it would hit the boy’s bat when he swung.

That pretty much describes Cooper’s cheerleading for Cindy Sheehan last night. The entire hour-long show was devoted to Mrs. Sheehan and her quixotic and dishonest quest to “just ask the President a few questions.” And during that entire hour, not one word about her anti-semitic rants was uttered. The pro-Palestinian Crawford Peace House was described as “a liberal meeting place.” Not a word about her statements that we shouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan. No questions about her recent contention that we’ve “contaminated” Iraq with nuclear radiation. Not a peep about her kooky conspiracy theories about 9/11.

She was a simple mother who just wanted to ask the President a few questions. And despite a promise on Anderson’s part to determine whether Sheehan lied to him during an interview on Monday about authorship of a letter she wrote to ABC last March in which she accused the President of going to war in Iraq as part of an Israeli-Neocon conspiracy, Cooper failed to deliver. On Tuesday, this is what Cooper had to say about the letter:

So we contacted ABC News today about it. They said they had received a letter on behalf of Cindy back in March. They said took it seriously enough that they responded to it, but so far they cannot find the actual e-mail, they say. They say they’re trying to find it, they’re investigating.

Bottom line, ABC News right now does not seem to be confirming this is what Cindy Sheehan wrote to them, so stay tuned. We’ll continue to follow.

Yesterday, ABC apparently demanded a correction by Cooper:

ABC News also said they spoke to CNN to see if they are going to run a correction about the statement Anderson Cooper made that “ABC News does not seem to be confirming this is what Cindy Sheehan wrote to them.” In fairness to CNN, that conclusion seemed reasonable yesterday. Today, the most likely conclusion is that Cindy Sheehan is making up totally implausible excuses for lying on TV.

And this proves that if you’re going to lie, make sure there’s no evidence on the internet:

Let’s give Mother Sheehan the benefit of the doubt and presume she’s been driven mad by the Texas heat on top of her grief. Because the letter was posted on usenet on March 18, 2005. At that time nobody, including Tony Tersh who posted it, had ever heard of Cindy Sheehan… Notice that Tony sent her a copy of the letter he posted — for her approval. There is no record of Cindy complaining about it having been edited. In fact, she and Tony have continued their correspondence ever since. In fact, Cindy sent Tony numerous e-mails about her public appearances and asked him to promote her website

Did Cooper ask one single question about the letter after saying that his show as going to get to the botton of it?.

Here’s the closest Cooper got to being confrontational:

COOPER: Do you consider yourself a radical? I mean, some have been calling you a radical. And clearly, some of the essays you’ve written — I mean, you’ve called President Bush a terrorist, the worst terrorist in the world. You’ve called the war in Iraq blatant genocide. That’s pretty radical.

SHEEHAN: I think I am pretty radical, but only on this issue. You know, this is my issue. I just want the killing to stop. I don’t want any other mother to go through what I’m going through, Anderson, whether she be Iraqi or American.

In the immortal words of Defense Secretary Alfred Nimziki from Independence Day, “That’s not entirely accurate.”

In fact, Mrs. Sheehan is radical about a whole host of issues. Here are some choice words she delivered at San Francisco State University in support of terrorist enabler, attorney Lynne Stewart:

America has been killing people . . . since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for.

But we were not attacked by Iraq. We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. . . . What they’re saying, too, is like, it’s okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the countries that we say it’s okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It’s okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can’t have them. It’s okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it’s–yeah–and it’s okay for Iraq to occupy–I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it’s not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon….

Don’t reporters like, you know, do research before they interview a subject anymore?

The rest of the interview was equally nauseating. Cooper would toss a softball, Sheehan would hit it out of the park. This exchange was typical:

COOPER: You know, Senator Joe Biden, who has been critical of President Bush for quite some time, he doesn’t say we should pull-out. He says, in fact, it would be a mistake to pull-out. John Kerry says that it would be a mistake, as well.

COOPER: Cindy Sheehan, I appreciate you joining us tonight.

The rest of the hour was full of mostly flattering, some downright gushy stories about Camp Casey and how this one, lone woman only wants a few questions answered.

Bulls**t!.

Anyone who thinks that hasn’t been paying attention to what Mrs. Sheehan is really after; a “Chief Brody Slap” moment:

THE CHIEF BRODY SLAP is based on the infamous scene in Jaws when a distraught mom slaps Roy Scheider across the face. Her son was eaten by a shark, but she blames the sheriff. Because he didn’t do enough. It’s not the shark, it’s the sheriff. It’s like me blaming Arianna for Christine Lahti’s post. But unjustified. And with a shark.

THE CHIEF BRODY SLAP (CBS) is a chief staple in an any liberal diet: a fiery mix of outrage, self-rightious indignation and condemnation delivered from a moral highground so lofty it gives you a nosebleed. The Brody Slap is predicated on the idea that you don’t need a solution, only blame. Who needs a real alternative when you’re already outraged? It’s easy!

There was also the obligatory “Iraq is actually Viet Nam in disguise” story with CNN’s ace political reporter Bruce Morton drawing the necessary analogies to the 1970’s,

To be fair (even though I don’t want to be) there was a smattering of reaction from parents who lost a loved one in Iraq and supported both the President and the mission. But they were overshadowed by the moonbats.

Sheehan’s PR handlers are doing a good job. They’re keeping her on message and keeping the press from concentrating on her anti-semitic rants.

Whatever Ben Cohen of Truthout is paying them, they’re earning every penny.

News on Able Danger this morning centers on an article in the New York Times that seems to indicate that the 9/11 Commission will target the Pentagon for blame if Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer’s story checks out.

Shaffer was a liason officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency and worked with the top secret data mining team in 1999-2000. He has come forward to confirm that Able Danger had 3 of the 4 main 9/11 hijackers pegged as a threat a full year prior to the attacks.

Commission Co-Chair Thomas Kean is asking the Pentagon to quickly assess the credibility of Col. Shaffer and hand over any relevant information:

The chairman of the Sept. 11 commission called on the Pentagon on Wednesday to move quickly to evaluate the credibility of military officers who have said that a highly classified intelligence program managed to identify the Sept. 11 ringleader more than a year before the 2001 attacks. He said the information was not shared in a reliable form with the panel.

The chairman, Thomas H. Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, offered no judgment about the accuracy of the officers’ accounts. But he said in an interview that if the accounts were true, it suggested that detailed information about the intelligence program, known as Able Danger, was withheld from the commission and that the program and its findings should have been mentioned prominently in the panel’s final report last year.

“If they identified Atta and any of the other terrorists, of course it was an important program,” Mr. Kean said, referring to Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian ringleader of the attacks. “Obviously, if there were materials that weren’t given to us, information that wasn’t given to us, we’re disappointed. It’s up to the Pentagon to clear up any misunderstanding.”

Democratic Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste said something similar yesterday:

A Democratic member of the commission, Richard Ben Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor, said in an interview today that while he could not judge the credibility of the information from Colonel Shaffer and others, the Pentagon needed to “provide a clear and comprehensive explanation regarding what information it had in its possession regarding Mr. Atta.”

“And if these assertions are credible,” he continued, “the Pentagon would need to explain why it was that the 9/11 commissioners were not provided this information despite request for all information regarding to Able Danger.”

This is the kind of “bloodletting” that John Podheretz speculated would occur:

“…if the Defense Department withheld critical information on this matter, it’s almost impossible to imagine the intensity of the bloodletting that will follow.

The blame game has begun and the Commission would seem to have the Pentagon in its sights. So the focus now shifts to what a possible response by the Pentagon would be?

1. Tell the truth. Admit it made a mistake due to a paperwork snafu. Apologize.

Yeah…right. Next.

2. Smear Colonel Shaffer. Stonewall on the paperwork. Trot out Able Danger team members to refute Shaffner’s assertion.

I’m afraid this would be a more likely scenario. Taking out the whistleblower has a long, dishonorable history in government and the tactics to do so have been honed and refined to perfection. In Col. Shaffner’s case, he has been on “administrative leave” for the last 16 months and has had his security clearances suspended. His lawyer claims it’s Pentagon petifogging over a cell phone bill coupled with his superior’s displeasure over Shaffer’s speaking with the 9/11 Commission staff. It will be interesting to see what the Pentagon says about that.

As far as the Able Danger paper trail, the Pentagon will suddenly discover thousands of more pages of Able Danger documents and curiously, not a one will mention Atta, hijackers, or anything related to a “Brooklyn cell.” And there definitely will be no mention of any attempts to bring anything to the attention of the FBI that was shot down by DoD lawyers.

Or, the Pentagon will say that they gave the Commission everything. Either way, Colonel Shaffer is screwed.

Finally, as I speculated yesterday, the Pentagon may make Able Danger team members available to select national security correspondents. I would further speculate that those team members memories will be suitably vague as in “I don’t recall any mention of Mohammed Atta in any of the reports.”

These tactics will satisfy the 9/11 Commission and perhaps even the Washington Post and the New York Times. They will, of course, have the effect of hanging Colonel Shaffer out to dry. Unless other team members come forward to corraborate his story, Shaffer’s career could become another casualty in the War on Terror.

One thing about Colonel Shaffer’s interviews that have puzzled me has been the reason for the reluctance of DoD attorneys to make Able Danger findings available to the FBI. This interview with Shaffer is from the Delaware County Daily Times (via Laura Rozen):

Yet when he tried to share this information with the FBI, he said he was blocked from doing so by Department of Defense. Part of the reason was recent history and the lack of trust that existed between the federal agencies.

The Branch Davidian debacle in Waco that left 70 people dead was still in the memory banks of all those who had been involved in it, including the U.S. Army Delta Force that advised the siege team.

When it came to al-Qaida, Shaffer believes the mindset of the military was “if we pass the information on to the FBI and they do something with it and if something goes wrong (we’re) going to get the blame for it.”

Ms. Rozen asks “What do we know about the US military’s role at Waco?”

This reference to Waco as it related to the military always confused me. We knew that Special Forces Command had trained Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents in assault techniques leading up to the BATF original raid. We were also aware of military assistance in planning the ultimate attack by the FBI. But that assistance was limited to offering technical advice.

Is it just me or does it seem to you that such minor assistance by the Pentagon was hardly a reason for the skittishness on the part of DoD attorneys. Could there be something else there?

If you allow me to adjust my tin foil hat, we can descend together into the fever swamps of both the right and left to examine the issue of military involvement in the FBI action that ended up tragically killing 70 people.

From Alexander Cockburn’s Counterpunch:

The two Army officers at the Justice Department that day were Colonel Gerald Boykin, and his superior, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the head of Special Forces at Fort Bragg. Though Clark (who had served with Schoomaker) was not directly involved in the onslaught on the Branch Davidians, the role of the US Army in that affair throws into harsh relief the way prohibitions against the use of the US military for civilian law enforcement can be swiftly by-passed.

After energetic use of Freedom of Information Act enquiries, plus research in three repositories in Texas holding evidence from the Waco inferno, plus other extensive investigations, McNulty and his team have put together an explosive file:

28 video tapes from the repositories show that in the final onslaught on the Waco compound were members of the US military in special assault gear and with name tags obscured. As noted above, Clinton’s revocation of the Posse Comitatus Act made this presence legal. McNulty isolates Vince Foster as the White House point man for the Waco operation.

General Shoomaker is currently the Army Chief of Staff. Things that make you go mmmmmmm…

And this from the Dallas Morning News (1999):

A former CIA officer said Thursday that he learned from Delta Force commandos that members of the secret Army unit were “present, up front and close” in helping the FBI in the final tear-gas assault on the Branch Davidian compound.

The former officer, Gene Cullen, told The Dallas Morning News that he heard the detailed accounts of the military’s active involvement from “three or four” anti-terrorist Delta commandos as he worked with them on an overseas assignment in 1993.

While he was deployed overseas on an assignment, Mr. Cullen said, Delta operators told him that the unit “had 10 operators down there, that they were involved in the advanced forward stages of [the FBI's April 19] operations.”

“When they explained to me the depth to which they were involved down in Waco, I was quite surprised. They said basically they were out there in the vehicles, the Bradley [fighting vehicles], the CEV [tanks],” he said. “They were active.”

The chairman of the Texas Department of Public Safety on Thursday told The News that evidence in the hands of Texas law enforcement personnel may support the account given to Mr. Cullen.

“I’m advised there is some evidence that may corroborate” the allegation that Delta Force participated in the assault, said James B. Francis Jr., the DPS official.

This puts a whole new spin on the reason why DoD lawyers were so reluctant to accede to Col. Shaffer’s request to get the FBI involved. Either the attorney’s were gun shy because of Special Operations Command direct participation the Waco disaster or more restrictions had been placed on military involvement in law enforcement matters. In effect, the “wall” was nothing new but rather a well considered policy of interpreting the Posse Comitatas law more literally.

What ever the reason, I found the participation of Delta Force - even if it was only on the periphery of the FBI operation at Waco - a curious side bar to this story. Anyone who has ever seen the documentary Waco: Rules of Engagement knows that there are many extraordinarily curious aspects to that tragedy that have never been satisfactorily explained. Many of the victims died of gunshots. The tank used by the FBI to punch holes in the walls of the compound for the purpose of initiating tear gas into the structure has disappeared therefore not allowing an examination to determine if it was fired upon as the FBI claims. Also missing is the door to the compound that would have shown who fired first in the initial confrontation between the Christians and BATF.

Just one more curious aspect to a story that may get even more strange over the next few days.

UPDATE

The Captain has a slightly different take on the Kean statement:

The Pentagon, meanwhile, has not yet issued any definitive statement on Able Danger. Media outlets and anonymous sources have expected one since last weekend, always speculating that the statement would come out the next day. It appears that the Pentagon also has been taken by surprise and may need more time to unravel Able Danger, or it may just need more time to establish the authorization and funding for such an extensive data-mining program. My guess is that Congress never authorized such a program, and probably neither did the Clinton White House. That will make Able Danger somewhat embarrassing to top brass and may also explain their reluctance to coordinate information between Able Danger and law-enforcement agencies.

That’s something I hadn’t considered. Will it make it more likely the Pentagon will do their best to get to the bottom of the story? Not likely, I’m afraid.

The irresponsibility of the Chinese government in combating an outbreak of bird flu in Yushu in northwestern Qinghai is almost incomprehensible. Rather than cooperate with international health officials to determine the extent and seriousness of the flare up of the disease, Chinese bureaucrats closed off that part of the country to all foreigners. What happened next could have come out of a monk’s account of epidemic disease from the middle ages:

When natives living further from the area made a trip to the farming community, they discovered that it had “vanished” together with 3 of its surrounding villages. Only some ruins, blocks from collapsed walls, remained. Apparently, the farms and villages had been flattened and there were signs that they had been razed.

It is believed that some inhabitants from those 3 villages were workers in the farm. Around 200 people were estimated to have inhabited or worked in those 3 villages and the farm. There whereabouts are, as yet, unknown.

The above translation of a boxun report suggest that three villages were razed in response to unrest linked to a forced bird flu quarantine in Yushu in northwestern Qinghai in China. China has imposed news blackouts and arrested reporters in the past, so verifiable news from the area is difficult to obtain.

If true, the razing of villages and disappearance of 200 people may point to other, more serious problems. Has the epidemic spread to humans and the Chinese government doesn’t want anyone to know?

This is from a translated page on a Chinese message board. It is completely unconfirmed but at the least, it demonstrates what happens in a society when the free flow of information is impeded by government:

News outside of China however, points toward a virulent strain of H5N1 linked to Qinghai Lake has killed ducks and geese in several areas of southern Siberia in Russia as well as the adjacent region in Kazakhstan. There are now reports of five suspected cases of H5N1 in Kazakhstan linked to infected geese, suggesting many similar cases would be possible in Qingahi and Xinjiang provinces in China, where there have been three outbreaks linked to migratory birds and all involved dead geese.

Although it is possible that the ability to infect humans has been recently acquired, boxun reports in May and June described human fatalities in the Qinghai Lake region. In addition, several strains of H5N1 capable of infecting humans were also described.

The news blackout in China as well as additional suspect cases in neighboring Sichuan province which may be spreading further south to Yunnan province has suggested that a raging H5N1 pandemic in China is being covered-up.

The fact that the government has prevented international officials from visiting the province is extremely troubling. It suggests that the bird flu epidemic is out of control in one and perhaps two provinces.

The avian flu outbreak at Lake Qinghai was first identified by Chinese wildlife officials at the end of April. Initially it was confined to a small islet in the huge salt lake, where geese suddenly began to act spasmodically, then to collapse and die. By mid-May it had spread through the lake’s entire avian population, killing thousands of birds. An ornithologist called it “the biggest and most extensively mortal avian influenza event ever seen in wild birds.”

Chinese scientists, meanwhile, were horrified by the virulence of the new strain: when mice were infected they died even quicker than when injected with “genotype Z,” the fearsome H5N1 variant currently killing farmers and their children in Vietnam.

Yi Guan, leader of a famed team of avian flu researchers who have been fighting the pandemic menace since 1997, complained to the British Guardian newspaper in July about the lackadaisical response of Chinese authorities to the unprecedented biological conflagration at Lake Qinghai.

“They have taken almost no action to control this outbreak. They should have asked for international support. These birds will go to India and Bangladesh and there they will meet birds that come from Europe.” Yi Guan called for the creation of an international task force to monitor the wild bird pandemic, as well as the relaxation of rules that prevent the free movement of foreign scientists to outbreak zones in China.

(HT: The New Editor)

In fact, as mentioned above, thanks to the inaction of Chinese officials, the pandemic has spread to Siberia:

Russia said on Tuesday an outbreak of bird flu in Chelyabinsk was dangerous to humans, as teams of sanitary workers destroyed birds in Siberia in an attempt to prevent the westward spread of the deadly virus.

The H5N1 strain of bird flu is behind the outbreak in Chelyabinsk, a city in the Ural mountains, the Emergencies Ministry said in a statement.

It said no cases among humans have been confirmed in Russia.

“Measures are being taken to prevent the spreading of the infection among domestic birds and to exclude the possibility of the infection moving to humans,” the statement added.

Russia is battling to contain a bird flu outbreak, which top health officials say has killed more than 11,000 birds countrywide and could spread westwards to Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

So what are the chances of avian flu morphing into a strain that can be transmitted human to human? According to Science Magazine, 100%:

The new US Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt told the Associated Press in early August that an influenza pandemic was now an “absolute certainty”, echoing repeated warnings from the WHO that it was “inevitable”. Likewise, Science magazine observed that expert opinion held the odds of a global outbreak as “100%”.

In the same grim spirit, the British media revealed that officials were scouring the country for suitable sites for mass mortuaries, based on official fears that avian flu could kill as many as 700,000 Britons. The Blair government is already conducting emergency simulations of a pandemic outbreak (”Operation Arctic Sea”) and is reported to have readied “Cobra” - a cabinet-level working group that coordinates government responses to national emergencies, like the recent London bombings, from a secret war room in Whitehall - to deal with an avian flu crisis.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, bird flu is now “endemic” to fowl in Southeast Asia. In other words, no local eradication efforts will be able to stem the tide of disease as it makes its way across the continent of Asia. Also according to the CDC, the bug is mutating to the point where it’s becoming easier to infect mammals as well as developing a resistance to some anti-viral medication:

New research suggests that currently circulating strains of H5 viruses are becoming more capable of causing disease (pathogenic) for mammals than earlier H5 viruses and are becoming more widespread in birds in the region. One study found that ducks infected with H5N1 are now shedding more virus for longer periods of time without showing any symptoms of illness. This has implications for the role of ducks in transmitting disease to other birds and possibly to humans as well. Additionally, other findings have documented H5 infection among pigs in China and H5 infection in felines (experimental infection in housecats in the Netherlands and isolation of H5N1 viruses from infected tigers and leopards in Thailand ), suggesting that cats could host or transmit the infection. These finding are particularly worrisome in light of the fact that reassortment of avian influenza genomes is most likely to occur when these viruses demonstrate a capacity to infect multiple species, as is now the case in Asia.

So where would the “tipping point” occur? There have already been 17 cases of known human to human contact, most of those occurring in Viet Nam. And recently, there was a scare in Indonesia as three people died of bird flu who lived in the same house:

There is also a question as to whether those 3 victims were exposed to the source at the same time or whether one of them was the index case and transmitted the virus to the other close family members sharing the same genetic susceptibility to the virus. As we know, the 2nd case showed symptoms 10-11 days after the 1st, the 3rd case a few days later: an unusual incubation period for avian influenza if they were exposed at the same time. My hypothesis is that they were grossly exposed to a (so far unknown) source, possibly repeatedly. Alternatively, one victim could have become a new infection source for the others who have similar genetic susceptibility.

Some health professionals point to Viet Nam as a possible starting point for the pandemic. But Viet Nam has been tremendously cooperative with international health officials in cataloging and studying the virus.

Not so China. This report was from July 20 in the Washington Post:

World Health Organization officials and other international health organizations have asked the Chinese government for details about three outbreaks in the remote western provinces of Qinghai and Xinjiang. In seeking to head off a potential human pandemic, international health experts said they require samples of the bird flu virus, analyses of its genetic makeup and specifics about the extent of the infection and efforts to contain it.

“It is a matter of urgency,” said Julie Hall, coordinator of communicable diseases in WHO’s China office. “It is an outbreak of potential international importance. We’re looking for China to share the information as quickly as possible and as much as possible.”

While Chinese authorities allowed a team of investigators from WHO and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization to visit Qinghai last month, the government has yet to respond to a June 17 request by international health experts to travel to Xinjiang, U.N. officials said. The Chinese officials, saying the infection in Xinjiang has been contained, have given no indication they will authorize the trip.

U.N. officials and independent scientists said they were reluctant to publicly discuss their frustrations with China for fear the government would shut them out of the country. But officials and researchers said they were dismayed with the government’s secrecy, especially after China ran afoul of international agencies for its response to the SARS epidemic that began in 2002. China’s health minister was fired after the government acknowledged it covered up the SARS outbreak.

Viet Nam apparently learned its lesson from the SARS outbreak and have provided all the cooperation that the WHO has asked of them. But the Chinese government is suffering what can perhaps best be described as a hangover from the secretive society created by Mao and brutally enforced by Deng Xiaoping. Despite all the economic reforms, China still has a long way to go before becoming a grown up and responsible member of the international community.

Given this mindset, it’s entirely possible that the first cases of human to human transmission by casual contact could occur in China - it could occur and we wouldn’t realize it until it had already spread to other countries. By then it would be too late. Given the fact that we live in an age where international travel is commonplace, bird flu could be in half a dozen countries before the world would be able to react.

Glenn Reynolds for one, is still being cautious about pushing the panic button. I love Glenn Reynolds to death but for God’s sake Mr. Instapundit! When people whose job it is to calm us down start talking about “inevitable” pandemics with “100%” certainty, isn’t about time to hit the red button and raise the alarm? The government should be mobilizing every information source they have access to and start getting the word out now. There are steps people can take to minimize the risk of catching the bug. Those measures should be pounded home on every news channel every day from here on out.

Time may be running out. And most of us have done precious little to protect ourselves.

Is anybody keeping track of the number of revelations coming out in recent days on what the 9/11 Commission failed to include when giving us what was supposed to be the “definitive narrative” of the events leading up to that tragic day?

Bill Clinton’s team ignored dire warnings that its approach to terrorism was “very dangerous” and could have “deadly results,” according to a blistering memo just obtained by The Post.
Then-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote the memo as she pleaded in vain with Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick to tear down the wall between intelligence and prosecutors, a wall that went beyond legal requirements.

Looking back after 9/11, the memo makes for eerie reading — because White’s team foresaw, years in advance, that the Clinton-era wall would make it tougher to stop mass murder.

“This is not an area where it is safe or prudent to build unnecessary walls or to compartmentalize our knowledge of any possible players, plans or activities,” wrote White, herself a Clinton appointee.

Mary Jo White you may recall is the same former US Attorney whose memo to Janet Reno about the danger represented by the “wall” set up by the Department of Justice between intelligence and law enforcement went unheeded:

White knew that prevention should take place over prosecution if the US intended on keeping its citizens safe. She wrote her first memo objecting to the political decision to create an almost-insurmountable barrier that far exceeded the requirements of FISA as interpreted by earlier administrations. When that got her nowhere, she wrote a second memo, giving specific and prescient warnings about what would happen as a result:

That memo surfaced during the 9/11 hearings. But The Post has learned that White was so upset that she bitterly protested with another memo — a scathing one — after Reno and Gorelick refused to tear down the wall.
With eerie foresight, White warned that the Reno-Gorelick wall hindered law enforcement and could cost lives, according to sources familiar with the memo — which is still secret.

The 9/11 Commission got that White memo, The Post was told — but omitted any mention of it from its much-publicized report. Nor does the report include the transcript of its staff interview with White.

And here the Commission engages in its second covert act of omission in order to protect those who made it impossible for the intelligence community to act on its findings. What happened to the second White memo? Mary Jo White gets three mentions in their final report, all of them in the footnotes, and none of them refers to her warnings to Gorelick or Janet Reno. Nowhere does the Commission reveal her objections to the wall or her efforts to reverse the Gorelick decision.

What makes the discovery of this second memo so damaging to the 9/11 Commission is that the warnings contained in it were so spot on, so prescient of exactly what was going to happen if the Department of Justice continued with this idiocy that it’s an outrage both documents were not included in the 9/11 Commission Final Report.

Captain Ed:

Mary Jo White had a good understanding of the consequences of the 1995 policy change. She predicted this outcome five years before it happened. Second, if the policy was indeed misunderstood, who had responsibility for implementing it correctly and ensuring that the FBI understood it properly? The Department of Justice, of which the FBI is a part, and its leadership — Janet Reno and Jamie S. Gorelick.

Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers were able to fly under our intelligence radar precisely because the FBI was prevented from sharing information with the CIA and vice versa about the terrorist’s movements. And the evidence that a Clinton appointee realized the consequences of the wall only serves to open the floodgates to more questions about the author of the policy, 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, and why the Commission went out of its way to avoid criticizing both the wall and its enabler.

The question now has to be what’s the next step?

Clearly some kind of Congressional hearings are in order with the Commission itself on trial. Should all revelations about the Commission’s inadequacies be included in the hearing process? What about Able Danger? Or even more explosively, should the entire question about Iraq-al Qaeda connections be re-opened?

Captain Ed has coined the term “Omission Commission” to describe the current state of the 9/11 Commission’s credibility. I sincerely hope that these omissions are explainable due to sloppiness or shallow thinking and not some kind of cover-up or worse, an effort to discard information that did not fit into pre-conceived conclusions.

If the latter were the case, the Commission’s entire effort would have been a waste. This would necessitate the formation of a completely new panel to try and get at all the facts relevant to the attack and draw new conclusions and recommendations accordingly.

UPDATE

Austin Bay weighs in:

I’ll defer to my wife — who is a lawyer– on this point. [objections raised by DoD lawyers] She says attorneys are trained to say no and raise objections. They’ll hesistate because they anticipate an ACLU law suit and a DC political firestorm. A senior military commander will focus on the potential for attack — he knows the American people are “the final client” and will weigh the data with that in mind. So far there is no evidence that says any discussion between attorneys and senior commanders took place.

It’s time for the President to make a statement about Able Danger, even something as simple as “the lieutenant-colonel’s statements require further investigation.” Then, let’s investigate, with presidential authority.

Also, check out AJ’s fantastic AM roundup of the latest on Able Danger at The Strata-Sphere.. I have a feeling he’s going to be adding to it as the day goes on.

GOP Bloggers:

Remember, this was a Clinton appointee! And to whom did this memo go? Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, Clinton’s #2 at Justice and, incredibly, a member of the September 11 commission - a very conflicted member.

The Clinton administration clearly had a preference for inhibiting government intrusiveness, even in national security cases. As this story develops, its impact on Hillary Clinton’s political ambitions will be interesting to watch.

This brings up a general question of how much will Hillary’s chances be affected by Bill’s shennanigans? I tend to discount much impact for the simple reason most people have made up their minds already about the Clintons which, ironically, could be the biggest obstacle to Hillary even getting the Democractic nomination much less win the Presidency.

Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer is a very brave fellow. He’s also a glutton for punishment.

Lt. Col. Shaffer is the man who is about to be engulfed by the storm of controversy surrounding the Able Danger revelations. And by engulfed, I mean eaten alive chewed up, and spit out in little pieces by the most powerful forces in government; the national security establishment.

What the left refers to as “The Military-Industrial Complex” is actually a much more complicated network of people, of law firms, lobbying concerns, and career bureaucrats who more or less are responsible for the safety and security of the United States. They make up the backbone of any Administration’s national security apparatus - Republican or Democratic. They fill almost all the appointed positions in the bureaucracies as well as sit on the numerous committees, commissions, advisory councils, and ad-hoc study groups (many of which most of us have never heard of) that decide on policy recommendations, weapons systems, international treaties, and the subtleties of diplomacy, not to mention the monitoring of our intelligence agencies.

And Lt. Col Shaffer has just run afoul of this group by 1) exposing a top secret data mining operation that used information gathered by the extraordinarily secret National Security Agency; and 2) opened up several members of the national security establishment who sat on the 9/11 Commission to embarrassing revelations that they may have missed a key element regarding the attack in their final report.

What Colonel Shaffer did was confirm the information that has been reported since last week; that 9/11 Commission staffers were told back in October, 2003 about Able Danger’s discovery of an al Qaeda cell here in the United States more than a year before the attack. We’ve already discussed the embarrassment such a discovery can cause the Commission. But it was Able Danger’s methods that may ultimately prove most damaging to Col. Shaffer’s prospects for continued advancement in the service of the United States army.

Part of Able Danger’s methods included using information gleaned from NSA intercepts. Anyone who has ever read James Bamford’s intriguing books Puzzle Palace or Body of Secrets : Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency knows that the NSA avoids publicity like the plague. And if one of their operations is outed, they become downright nasty. How many “tell-all” books from former NSA employees have you seen? This is due to incredibly strict non-disclosure forms signed by all employees as a condition of employment. Violation is not just grounds for firing; you can go to jail for a very long time if you’re caught talking about the NSA with anyone. That goes double for writing about the Agency.

Since Able Danger was not strictly an NSA operation (it was an operation carried out by Special Forces Command) Lt. Shaffer, as far as we know, is not subject to any non-disclosure agreements. However, any operation that features involvement by the NSA and is subsequently highlighted in national media will not sit well with the national security establishment. Expect the pushback to begin today when, as Junkyard Blog reports, the Pentagon will have a lot to say about Able Danger, none of it earth shattering. The next step will be to make available to some respected national defense correspondent for either the New York Times or Washington Post an actual Able Danger team member to refute Col. Shaffer’s charges.

Shaffer was not an actual Able Danger team member. He was liaison to the team for the Defense Intelligence Agency:

Colonel Shaffer said that his role in Able Danger was as the program’s liaison with the Defense Intelligence Agency in Washington, and that he was not an intelligence analyst. The interview with Colonel Shaffer on Monday night was arranged for The New York Times and Fox News by Representative Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a champion of data-mining programs like Able Danger.

Colonel Shaffer’s lawyer, Mark Zaid, said in an interview that he was concerned that Colonel Shaffer was facing retaliation from the Defense Department - first for having talked to the Sept. 11 commission staff in October 2003 and now for talking with news organizations.

Mr. Zaid said that Colonel Shaffer’s security clearance had been suspended last year because of what the lawyer said were a series of “petty allegations” involving $67 in personal charges on a military cellphone. He noted that despite the disciplinary action, Colonel Shaffer had been promoted this year from the rank of major.

While this certainly put Col. Shaffer in the loop, it’s barely conceivable that the 9/11 Commission may have justified discounting his revelations due to his position as being one step removed from the actual operation. And note how Col. Shaffer’s lawyer puts his client’s dirty laundry on the table immediately. Any hint that the Colonel is airing these allegations to put his superiors in a bad light as revenge for past slights is countered by full disclosure.

Where Col. Shaffer’s real problem is that he’s ruffling the feathers of some very well connected people. I might mention that the national security establishment, contrary to what the Noam Chomsky’s and Alexander Cockburn’s of the world say, is not some gigantic conspiracy of right wing cabalists who run the government from an office at the Pentagon. It is rather a loose network of individuals who’ve known each other for years, see each other at conferences, socialize together, and make it their business to watch each other’s back. Far from being an organized conspiracy, it’s more like a club.

In fact, right wing paranoia over the Tri-Lateral Commission, although silly and misplaced, is probably close to the truth, at least as far as there being a few places like the TLC, Bohemian Grove, and the Council on Foreign Relations where large numbers of the establishment come together to socialize. To say there’s a conspiracy presupposes common aims among a large number of them which is demonstrably untrue. Politics, ideology, and personality divide the establishment as much as it divides any other large group. To posit conspiracy out of this is, well, loony.

But that won’t stop the pushback from a Defense Department that wants to cover its arse over an allegation that it let a bunch of lawyers dictate national security. Nor will it stop a similar effort by 9/11 Commission staffers. The Executive Director of the staff is now one of the most powerful people in Washington, a top aide to Secretary of State Condi Rice Philip Zelicow:

The Able Danger papers shown to the 9/11 Commission at the Pentagon after the Afghanistan meeting did not feature anything mentioning Atta. So the 9/11 Commission says. So either the Commission staff is lying. Or no paper mentioned Atta and Shaffer is just wrong. Or the Defense Department misplaced the paperwork mentioning Atta. Or somebody at the Defense Department deliberately didn’t give the Commission the material.

In the first case, if the 9/11 commission staff is lying, the hell to be paid is going to be colossal. Among other things, it could shake the current State Department to its foundations, since the 9/11 commission staff director, Philip Zelicow, is one of Condi Rice’s most trusted aides.

In the second case, if the Defense Department withheld critical information on this matter, it’s almost impossible to imagine the intensity of the bloodletting that will follow.

That bloodletting will partly be because of who was commanding officer of SOCOM at the time that Able Danger was in operation:

The current Chief of Staff of the US Army is Gen. Peter Schoomaker. He rose through the ranks of Special Operations Command, and was in charge of that command at MacDill Air Force Base at the time Able Danger did its work. If the Pentagon is reticent to confirm Lt Col Shaffer’s story, you have two data points to consider as reasons why. One, the likely involvement of NSA, the most secretive and most effective (largely because it’s so secretive) intel agency we have. They stay out of the limelight and generally because of that run rings around the CIA. Anything that puts a spotlight on NSA is bad, so that in and of itself could be a reason to pour cold water on Able Danger. The second data point is that it could boomerang around on the Army Chief of Staff if he was in any way involved in bottling up Able Danger in his old command. The Pentagon does not want this scandal, not now and not ever. So I’ll be surprised if they say anything interesting anytime in the next hundred years about Able Danger.

Colonel Shaffer is counting on Congressman Curt Weldon to run interference for him. I’m afraid this is an illusion. And damn Weldon if he was able to convince the Colonel that he could protect him. The Congressman should know better. When it comes to protecting its own, the establishment has a history of closing ranks.

I hope the Colonel has a strong constitution. He’s going to need it.

UPDATE

Austin Bay:

I thought many of the folks serving on the 9/11 panel were weak, pompous politicos — placed there because of personal political connections, not defense and intelligence acumen or reputation for careful analysis. However, Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean have credibility, and they were the men who led the commission. If Able Danger had evidence, I expected Kean and Hamilton to demand to see it and vet it.

Yesterday Fox, the AP and NY Times changed the dimensions of this story. I’m still not certain where the allegations will lead, but we now have an officer involved providing details. How clear and detailed was the Able Danger information? We still don’t know– Weldon’s and Shaffer’s allegations could still unravel if the information amounts to “hearsay.”

Tom Maguire whose skepticism is diminishing…slowly:

Let’s end with an easy question - do people think they have seen enough to merit a Congressional investigation? And do people want the investigation to be in Curt Weldon’s House, or over in the Senate?

My answer - if the Defense Dept. now denies everything, I may not believe them, and if they admit that they sat on Atta’s name, I really won’t believe it - send it to the Senate, start putting people under oath, and sort this out.

Weldon’s credibility is zero. But a joint House-Senate Committee wouldn’t be out of the question. Besides, Weldon would insist on face time for the cameras seeing as its his witnesses who would play the starring role.

Anyone who has the stomach to sit down and actually read all of Adolph Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kampf is a better man than I, Gunga Din. I picked up a copy of “My Struggle” about 20 years ago in a used paperback book store and thought, why not? If I could make it through Communist Manifesto and it’s convoluted structure and fevered prose, I figured that Hitler’s screed would be a breeze. I had read extended excerpts in William Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich as well as John Toland’s thoughtful biography of the monster Adolph Hitler so it’s not like I was totally unfamiliar with what I was in for as far as what Shirer aptly termed “turgid prose.”

After the first hour, I realized that Shirer was being kind . “Turgid” is an understatement. “Incomprehensible” would be more accurate. Hitler was laughable as a writer. There’s no organization, no grand concept, no structure to sentences, paragraphs or chapters. In short, it was a mess.

Hitler would have fit right in if he had been blogging (at least on this site).

I got through the first 100 pages and lost interest. But I bring up the book if only as an object lesson in what Hitler’s contemporaries thought of it; they had exactly the same reaction. And because they dismissed it outright, they paid for their shortsightedness with 40 million of their dead.

For contained in its 664 rambling, confused pages was Hitler’s plan to conquer Europe, subjugate the Slavs, destroy Russia, and annihilate the Jews. It was all there in black and white and the snobby intellectuals who looked down their noses at him ended up paying for their incredulity with the most destructive war in European history.

Even Hitler’s rise to power was outlined in the book. The alliance with big business and the army, the use of propaganda, the mysticism, the hearkening back to Germany’s pagan roots - it was all there. Never before in history has a leader offered such an exact blueprint of his rise to power or plans for conquest.

The book was written in 1925-26 when Hitler was serving time in prison for trying to overthrow the Weimer Republic. Ten years later, he began to methodically carry out plans laid out in the book almost as if he was going down a list and checking off items as he went along. Starting with the re-occupation and re-militarization of the Rhineland, through the Anschluss with Austria, the claims made on the Sudentenland, the elimination of a rump Czechoslovakian state, Poland and the Danzig Corridor, and finally the war that he planned to fight with first France, then England, and lastly the Soviet Union.

I point all this out about Mein Kampf because I’ve been struck when reading some liberal commentators who denigrate the very idea of a War on Terror by saying that we shouldn’t really take the Islamists dreams of establishing a Muslim Caliphate seriously nor should we worry about al Qaeda’s desire to start a global revolution that would sweep away the decadent west and put in its place an Islamic political hegemony that would dominate the world.

Is that too far fetched? Only if you’re not paying attention to what your enemy is saying:

With the fourth anniversary of the hot war between al Qaeda and the West approaching, it is interesting to see how al Qaeda’s strategy and objectives have evolved since the United States committed to engaging in open warfare.

The Word Unheard points us to an article in Spiegel Online by a Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein, who is believed to be a reliable source of information on al Qaeda. His main source for this article on al Qaeda strategy is none other than Saif al-Adel, al Qaeda’s military commander who is currently operating from Iran.

al Qaeda’s purported strategy can be broken down into seven “phases” which span from 2000 until 2020, at which time they believe the global Islamist Caliphate will be established and they will achieve “definitive victory.”

(HT: The Fourth Rail)

What’s remarkable about these phases is that so far, they have eerily followed what has happened in the Global War on Terror. For instance, the first phase known as “The Awakening” that was to last from 2000-2003 or more generally, from 9/11 to the fall of Baghdad, Islam was to have provoked the United States into fighting thereby “awakening” Muslims:

“The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful,” writes Hussein. “The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target.” The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard “everywhere.”

I realize that many critics of the War on Terror point to this “why wake a sleeping bear” theme as good reasons not to have fought in either Iraq or Afghanistan. By way of an answer, I think it’s pretty clear that the Islamists would have kept attacking us and given a continued safe haven in Afghanistan, would have been virtually untouchable.

The second phase called “Opening eyes” is the period we’re in now and is scheduled to last until 2006:

Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an “army” set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.

I have no doubt that our invasion and reconstruction in Iraq is causing Islamist recruits to pour into that country. The question is, what good is it doing?

So far, the Second Phase has been a failure. The Arab and greater Islamic Street has been essentially silent in its support of al Qaeda. The perception that al Qaeda’s cause is popular as hundreds of Islamists enter Iraq monthly is overshadowed by the tens of thousands of Islamic fighters who enter Afghanistan during the war with the Soviet Union. al Qaeda has generated new recruits, but not nearly enough to replace the experienced operators and managers that have been lost under the American onslaught in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Would that situation change if we were to leave Iraq in chaos? Not only would we destabilize the entire middle east, but we’d risk the scattered cells and small cadres of terrorists coalescing into an army if Iraq became a terrorist haven.

The third phase or “Arising and Standing Up” and last from 2007-2010. Emphasis would be placed on Syria:

The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and — even more explosive — in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida’s masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.

This, I believe, is where the folly of the left’s critique of the war lies. What we’re dealing with is clearly a trans-national, sophisticated, determined group of fanatics who have a plan and, unless things change drastically in the next few years, will have the funding to carry out those plans. Whatever damage we’ve inflicted on al Qaeda’s infrastructure, their plans are far enough along that elements are already in place to carry on.

The fourth phase will take place between 2010 and 2013 and will target Arab governments:

The estimate is that “the creeping loss of the regimes’ power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida.” At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.

Bill Roggio points out that phase three and four can essentially be condensed although the hope that democratic reform will blossom in most if not all of those countries could mitigate against al Qaeda’s plan to overthrow Arab regimes. This part of the plan has never been a secret but it should give impetus to both governments and reform movements in the Arab world to quicken the pace of change.

The final three phases of this plan reveal the Islamists ultimate goals:

The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.

The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as “definitive victory.” Hussein writes that in the terrorists’ eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the “one-and-a-half million Muslims,” the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn’t last longer than two years.

Whether or not you believe that this plan can be carried through to fruition is beside the point. The Islamists believe it. And that’s what makes them so extraordinarily dangerous. While Mr. Roggio points out correctly that the majority of Muslims have so far rejected the idea of a Pan-Islamic movement, I wonder if that attitude wouldn’t change if the United States were to be severely crippled by either one or more nuclear blasts or a biological attack that would destroy our economy. Would such a huge victory for al Qaeda galvanize the Islamic world and unite its factions under the Islamists banner?

I for one don’t want to find out.

The situation regarding top secret Pentagon data mining operation known as Able Danger is at the moment, confused - to say the least.

On the one hand, you have Rep. “Crazy” Curt Weldon backtracking on the story as his main source - a source that the 9/11 Commission admits met with staffer Deitrich Snell on July 12, 2004 and relayed information that Atta was pegged by the Able Danger team a year before 9/11 - has said that he had no corroborative paperwork to back up his contention about Atta.

On the other hand, you have this story in today’s Washington Times which quotes a second source (who met with Commission staffers in Pakistan in October, 2003) as saying that he did in fact inform the Commission that the Able Danger team had indeed uncovered information about Mohammed Atta and that he tried to tell the Commission again in January:

The intelligence official said he was interviewed in October 2003 by members of the September 11 commission staff, including Executive Director Philip Zelikow, and sought to arrange a follow-up meeting that the staff had requested when he returned from Afghanistan in January 2004, but was rebuffed.

“They took good notes and scribbled the entire time I talked. Two staffers took four to five pages of notes each. Other members from Special Ops Command also were in attendance,” he said, adding that he was “shocked” in January 2004 when the staff members told him, “We don’t need to talk to you.”

Mr. Weldon said he wants to know “who made the decision and why was it never mentioned in the final document. … It would have changed the completion on the final 9/11 report.”

I speculated in this post that there were probably two separate sources for the Able Danger information since the 9/11 Commission met with another intelligence officer in October.

To have that source confirm that he talked about Mohammed Atta and the team’s inability to report their information to the FBI throws just a little bit different light on the matter.

Jim Geraghty is pissed at Weldon for his backtracking. But its obvious Geraghty did not see the article in the Washington Times. And Geraghty’s scoop that the Pentagon is going to be releasing Able Danger information that won’t have any “bombshells” is hardly surprising.

What is surprising, is this little tidbit from the Times article that’s pretty much of any eye opener:

But Pentagon officials have said they have uncovered no specific intelligence data from the Able Danger unit concerning an Atta-led terrorist cell, other than a few intelligence analyses that mention his name, and September 11 commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton disputed the source of the information.

Really? And why no mention of these “analyses” in the 9/11 Commission Final Report? The Captain:

This story has not yet run its course, not by a long shot. Something strange has been going on with Able Danger. Either it did a much better job identifying terrorists than anyone wants to acknowledge, or it uncovered something else that no one wants to release. Either way, Congress needs to start hauling people into the open and start asking for sworn testimony on this program and exactly how much the Commission knew about it.

This second source makes this a whole new ball game.

And let me say again; even with that information in hand, I doubt whether we could have prevented 9/11. Also, it’s tempting to get ahead of ourselves on this story and read more into it than is there. But if the 9/11 Commission staff is lying, don’t you think that’s something we should know? It worries me that the staffers may have pulled a “Sandy Berger” and sanitized Commission records when they were in the National Archives last week. But a Congressional hearing would uncover something like that easily.

Does Weldon have enough credibility left to convene such a hearing? Not if the Democrats have anything to say about it. However, if two different sources come forward to corroborate Weldon’s charges, Congress may have no choice but to use its power of oversight and subpoena to get to the bottom of this.

UPDATE

AJ at The Strata-Sphere has news:

Rep. Curt Weldon said Monday that one or more members of an elite team of military intelligence officers who had identified al Qaeda hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist threat two years before he led the 9/11 attacks are prepared to go public.

“I can guarantee you that you will be able to have one on your show,” Weldon told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity. “You might want to go with your TV show with this, because it will be a major story,” the Pennsylvania Republican urged. “And you can interview him directly.”

Now that’s an interview I’m not going to miss.

I suppose I could have named this week’s Carnival “The Cindy Sheehan Cluebat Hall of Fame Edition.” Judging by volume of posts, she would have been an automatic inductee. Heck, we even could have waived the mandatory 3 year waiting period for membership.

But that wouldn’t be entirely accurate. Some people think Mrs. Sheehan is clueless. Others believe she’s a cold, calculating radical who has surrounded herself with some of the more nauseating elements of the anti-semitic and anti-American left.

What do I think? Hell, I just work here. But if someone were to ask me I’d say that we should highlight the gimlet-eyed radicals who have captured her little floor show while asking “Mother Sheehan” some pretty hard questions about some of her kookier ideas. Like, does she really believe that the war in Iraq is a neo-con/Israel conspiracy? In short, we should do the MSM’s work for them given their predisposition to downplay some of the more unattractive aspects of Mrs. Sheehan’s campout while playing up the dramatic confrontation with the President. They don’t seem eager to cash out Mrs. Sheehan’s chips just yet.

That said, fear not! We have plenty of other fodder for this week’s Carnival. The clueless, like the Force, will always be with us. So pop a cold one and browse through this week’s riot of idiocies. You won’t regret it.

Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it.
(Scott Adams, Cartoonist)

Hey Scottie! I see you’re familiar with “No Child Left Behind.”
(Me)

Different River has a long, rewarding post on people - including the Israeli government - who are using a double standard in supporting the uprooting of settlers in Gaza. An excellent primer on the issue as well as some interesting perspectives. Well done.

Do not ever get Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy mad at you. Cindy Sheehan comes a cropper of Beth’s towering rant. And if strong language bothers you, as Beth would say “tough.”

For an immediate look at the other side, northstar from The People’s Republic of Seabrook skewers the President for….well, just about everything, including the smirk. “You can’t experience what you don’t feel” is the title of the post.

The Headmistress at the Common Room, as is her wont, gently takes down a customer at a book sale who demonstrates a cluelessness that alas, is becoming more and more common these days.

Matt at Going to the Mat has my vote for a finalist in cluebat of the week. Read the linked article about a man so absent minded that he…well, I won’t spoil it. But like Matt says, the guy will probably be “couch camping” for a few days.

Orac at Respectful Insolence does a calypso dance on top of Harry Belefonte’s clueless head. Judging by Mr. Belefonte’s comments, he doesn’t know his arse from his Adams apple.

Jay at Stop the ACLU brings to our attention the ACLU’s campaign to legalize (not “decriminalize”) drugs. It’s a satisfying emotional argument but the practicality of the proposals are, as Jay points out, “incredibly elitist and irresponsible.”

Bill Martin, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada sends us this link that demonstrates some North of the Border cluelessness about privacy laws and a 15 year old murder case.

The SoCal Pundit gives us a twofer this week, fisking Cluebat Hall of Famer Paul Krugman and clueless columnist Paul Craig Roberts for some querrelous comments on the economy.

Elisa is watching Barbara Boxer at Boxer Watch but this week sends us a curious rant from a blogger that calls Elisa a “McVeigh-loving right-winger.” Methinks that blogger needs a little adjustment of their tin foil hat.

Raven from And Rightly So (posting at Flight Pundit) has one of the stranger nominees this week. It seems the bloodthirsty jihadists at Guantanamo are going ga-ga over Harry Potter. Maybe they see a kindred spirit in some of the monsters.

Pstupidonymous sends us a link to this clueless Republican pol who “argues that people who object to massive pay hikes, bloated
budgets, and tax increases simply don’t understand how Pennsylvania politics works.” Spoken like a true blue cluebat.

AJ from The Strata-Sphere points out that Cindy Sheehan may in fact be harming the Democrats chances for electoral success in 2006 and 2008. Could be why some of the lefty bloggers and pols are keeping their distance from Mrs. Sheehan and her media circus.

How about a little change of pace? Here’s Two-Dogs of Mean ole Meany with one of his expert takedowns of splodeydope John Kerry. “Trust me, I have no Purple Hearts to give away for any shaving nicks that you might have acquired lately.” Yowch!

My home state Senator and cluebat extraordinaire Dick Durbin is back! In addition to denying he ever said anything clueless about comparing our military to Nazi thugs, Dickie now denys that he ever intended to give a religious litmus test to Judge Roberts. Read Maryhunter’s whole piece.

Elephants in Academia have an absolutely fascinating post skewering the press for their mocking of President Bush’s physical fitness and then setting the record straight. Great stuff!

The Nose on your Face has a hilarious post on NARAL’s anti Roberts ad. “NARAL Executives Embroiled In Dead Carnie Scandal” tells you all you need to know.

Mike at Your Republic Blog jumps on the Department of Homeland Security for an inadequate web site. One would think that if there’s a terror alert, the place to go on the web would be DHS, right? Uh-Uh.

Cao at Cao’s Blog (pronounced “key”) has Cindy Sheehan dead to rights with a scathing critique of some of the company she keeps. “Code Pink” should change their name to “Code Red.” Cao also has a link to a Kos poll that she wants everyone to vote in.

Jimmy K. at But That’s Just My Opinion highlights a speech by Mrs. Sheehan at an event honoring the terrorists best friend Lynne Stewart. Says Jimmy: “Moonbat by any other name is still a Moonbat.”

Ferdinand T. Cat of Conservative Cat has a serious take on Sheehan and some thoughts on the “wager” imposed on her by the people who have captured her cause.

Hypnyx from Global Democratic Revolution has a few choice words for conservative columnist Michelle Malkin who believes that “This woman is so full of crap, I can smell her in Chicago.” Hypnyx must have a highly developed olfactory sense because I live in the Chicago area and can’t smell a thing.

Bill at Pirates Cove has a link to a video of Mrs. Sheehan thanking the inmates at the Democratic Underground for their support. Talk about birds of a feather…

Fred Fry at Fred Fry International outlines the Sheehan controversy succinctly and adds that “There are over 100,000 troops currently in Iraq that the President is accountable to,” and points out that the White House hasn’t exactly ignored her.

Giacomo of Joust the Facts has an excellent perspective of the NARAL kerfluffle. ” Oh, come on now. NARAL didn’t want a serious discussion on Judge Roberts, they wanted to demagogue the abortion issue and change Roberts’ name to Eric Rudolph in the public’s mind.” Yup.

Mensa Barbie Blog (best of both worlds, eh guys?) links to an article that discusses the dual role dogs play(misunderstood by one writer for the NY Times) in Iraq with another link to a previous post she did on the subject of doggie warriors in the WoT. Great training video!

Mark Coffey of Decision “08 has a brand new look to his site and welcomes Maureen Dowd back in fine fashion as he fisks the clueless one for her wacky ideas on whether women are better off in Iraq now that Saddam is behind bars and pouting about a lack of Cheeto’s.

Pamela of Atlas Shrugs gives us an example of why she’s one of the best bloggers around. In a post wondering why it took a law suit to release the 9/11 tapes, she also wonders why the gatekeepers in the media try to keep 9/11 under wraps. “If that were me and I went to my office that morning and died that way, I would expect every last American to go to bat for me. To scream my name from the top of the New York Skyline.” Go. Read.

Van Helsing of Moonbattery hunts down original moonbat George Monbiot whose curious ideas about patriotism would be funny if you didn’t realize that he was being absolutely dead serious.

Harvey from Bad Example has link to an email from Blackfive that proves there are some very confused people out there, whose turn of a phrase leaves much to be desired.

Josh Cohen of Multiple Mentality has some thoughts on the stupidity of some teachers when it comes to reading and gives us the benefit of an experience from his own education.

North American Patriot has more on Cindy Sheehan and the emotional outpouring from the moonbats at the Democratic Underground. You really can’t make some of that stuff up.

Mr. Right has an hilarious spoof of the 9/11 Commission listening to testimony of the top secret Able Danger data mining operation. I think he’s got it pegged just about right.

Finally, here’s a post I did on the anti-Semites surrounding Cindy Sheehan. “The Jooooos Did It.”

NOTICE: NEXT WEEK’S CARNIVAL WILL APPEAR ON WEDNESDAY 8/24 DUE TO A PRIOR COMMITMENT TO HOST “BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES.”

Check out all the carnivals at TTLB’s Uber Carnival home page.

I’ve been remiss in my duties as a member of the Watchers Council. I neglected to post the results from our vote of August 5.

Yours truly carried away top honors in the Council category with my post on the coming (probable?) bird flu pandemic called “The Coming Catastrophe.

Finishing first in the Non Council category was “The American Islamic Leaders’ ‘Fatwa’ is Bogus” by The Counterterrorism Blog. Finishing a close second was Michael J. Totten’s “Fisking Juan Cole: A Photo Gallery.”

This week’s vote had The Education Wonks coming in first with “Washington’s Wasteful Ways: Alaskan Pork Chops.” Dymphna from Gates of Vienna finished a close second with “Guess What? Anatomy is Destiny.”

In the Non Council category, The Dawn Patrol’s “Planned Parenthood Fantasizes About Blowing Up ‘Anti-Choicers’” won the honors for top post.

If you’d like to participate in this week’s Watcher’s vote, go here and follow instructions.