Ray Robison: Pointing out the obvious to the oblivious

Sullivan, Johnson and Schneier owe us an apology

Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Schneier and Larry Johnson owe us - the public - and the fine folks working at TSA, Homeland Security and surely other unidentified agencies a big, fat apology. It was just about a year ago that the news broke of a massive terror plot to blow up international flights from Britain to the US. In what would seem to have become a common refrain from the left these individuals surged to cast doubt on the government reports of imminent attacks. As always these men and others relied on the fact that the government can not release vital information concerning investigations of a sensitive nature in order to try and poke holes in the official story to lesson the serious nature of these plots and undermine the credibility of our government. It is their obvious intent to make these very real plots appear like nothing more than Bush Administration attempts to make political hay out of fear.

Sullivan wrote “So there was no imminent threat at all.” In supporting this all these men remarked on the lack of passports, plane tickets, and viability of the liquid explosives to be used in the plot. An example from Schneier:

In truth, it's doubtful that their plan would have succeeded; chemists have been debunking the idea since it became public. Certainly the suspects were a long way off from trying: None had bought airline tickets, and some didn't even have passports.

Yes, this was the argument; no ticket equals no ‘imminent threat’. As I showed previously a specific example of a terrorist buying a ticket one hour before a flight (that she blew up) is easily obtainable. Passports can be expedited, faked, and it is quite possible that other as-of-yet unidentified people with passports were expected to carry out the attack.

Sullivan even went so far as to demand an apology from those who called into question his ‘debunking’ of the terror plot:

I await a retraction from the Malkin blog; and an apology from Jeff Goldstein who accused me of "dementia" for doubting the original official line. It was not dementia prompting my doubts. It was the evidence, something some on the far right seem uninterested in.

Larry Johnson wrote:

...they lacked a viable terrorist plan ready for execution.  We also know that the Bush Administration, who was being regularly briefed by the Brits about the plot, pushed London to act prematurely.

Now ABC News is reporting in an interview with DHS Secretary Chertoff that the plot was “a matter of weeks or even days" away from execution. As well the report shows that government laboratories have tested the liquid explosives to be used in the planned attack and found it produced a quite devastating explosion even in small quantities. The report has accompanying video of the government tests.

Clearly all these men were using their expertise to make judgments in a vacuum of information. But what these men should know and most certainly do know is that the government can not release every detail of such a plot because they have a duty to protect sources, methods of intelligence collection, and keep the details of destructive methods used by terrorists out of the public purview. The fact is that they relied on this predictable lack of information to prey on a public unaware of how the government must keep some things secret in our own interests. They exploited our own security procedures to make political hey against a president they oppose politically. For that reason, not for being wrong, but for doing it purposely to mislead the public in their roles – in the case of Schneier and Johnson - as security experts, these men owe us all an apology.

Compare and contrast: CNN coverage of republican vs. democrat scandals volume I

The new revelations about the email habits of Republican Congressman Foley are certainly sick and disturbing. Hopefully, we all get that. I don't think this needs a detailed look at what we all know, he seems to be a child predator.

Moving past that, it is an interesting study to see how differently CNN handles his case from that of Democrat Congressman Jefferson from Louisiana, caught with cash in the fridge during an FBI sting operation.

Most of us don't have time to read beyond the first few paragraphs of every story. Thus we only skim the headline and intro on many stories. So to get the maximum attention, a fact needs to presented in the introductory paragraph.

Now look at this recent article from CNN: WH: Bush 'as shocked as everyone else' at Foley charges

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A White House official said Sunday that administration officials were unaware until Friday of allegations that Republican Rep. Mark Foley exchanged sexually explicit e-mails with a 16-year-old former congressional page.

Note that the disgraced politician is described as a republican in the first sentence.
Now compare with this article on Congressman Jefferson: Judge ruled that raid of congressman's office was constitutional

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Louisiana congressman implicated in a federal bribery probe filed papers Tuesday to keep records seized from his Capitol Hill office under seal while he appeals a federal judge's order allowing investigators to review them.

Federal agents in May searched the office of Rep. William Jefferson in May. The action spurred protests from both parties in the House of Representatives. On Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan ruled that the Constitution's "speech and debate" clause, which gives members of Congress immunity while conducting their official duties, does not shield them from execution of valid search warrants.

Lawyers for Jefferson, a Democrat...

Here the democrat's party affiliation is three paragraphs down.  Of course, it may be different writers, or may just be random, so let's look at some more articles.

Foley: Congressman quits after messages to teens found

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican Rep. Mark Foley resigned Friday from the House after sexually explicit instant message conversations with teenage congressional pages attributed to him surfaced.

Note the republican label is applied in the first word in the article.

Jefferson: Rep. Jefferson blames Pelosi for plight

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. William Jefferson, who on Friday was stripped of his seat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, said the House minority leader singled him out because she wants to be speaker of the House one day.

Jefferson, D-Louisiana, is the subject of an ongoing bribery investigation. No charges have been filed against Jefferson and he maintains his innocence.

Well at least the democrat label made it into the second paragraph.

Foley: Congressman resigns after e-mails questioned

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rep. Mark Foley, R-Florida, resigned from Congress on Friday, effective immediately, in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former male page.

Again, first line.

Jefferson: Justice Department rejects calls to return lawmaker's documents. I read about ten paragraphs in and saw no reference to his party. When I got to other congressional leader's statements, they were identified as D or R. But nothing for Jefferson that far into it.

Of course the Foley case was quick and done. There are relatively few articles on his disgrace. So let's see if this trend continues for Jefferson's articles.

Rumpus over FBI raid leads to talk of resignations. Bottom of 2nd paragraph.

Bush stepped in to quell dispute over documents.  Top of second paragraph.

GOP, Dems blast FBI for searching congressional office. Middle of third paragraph. 

Hastert: FBI 'took the wrong path' when searching lawmaker's office. Actually made into the  first paragraph.  Hope nobody got fired over that.

Lawmakers decry search of D.C. office. Top of the second paragraph. 

So in all three full length articles that I could find about the Foley scandal on CNN they listed Foley as a republican in the first line, if not the first word of the article.

In eight full length articles on Jefferson, CNN placed the democrat label on him in the first paragraph only once and in one instance left it out entirely of the first ten paragraphs.   

Come on in, the Jihad's fine

http://www.memritv.org

Hamas to al Qaeda- me love you long time!

Following are excerpts from an interview with Muhammad Nazzal, member of the Hamas Political Bureau, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on July 28, 2006.

Interviewer: As you have heard, Ayman Al-Zawahiri talked about the role of Al-Qaeda in what is going on. He threatened that Al-Qaeda would intervene. Will you stand in the same trench with him and with his group?

Muhammad Nazzal: We support any effort against the Zionist enemy. One of the disagreements we have with several Islamic groups was that we believe that the resistance should be directed primarily against this Zionist aggression and occupation. We should concentrate our efforts in Palestine, and in the resistance against the Zionist aggression in Palestine and Lebanon, because this will result in great achievements for the nation. All Arabs and Muslims agree on this issue.

Interviewer: Muhammad, in short, what you are saying is that you are ready to support Al-Qaeda, right?

Muhammad Nazzal: If Al-Qaeda or any Palestinian, Arab, or Islamic faction wants to come to Palestine to fight the Israelis, we welcome this.

See it for yourself

Israel has made a brilliant move. Let the world see the proof that Hizbollah is using civilians as human shields. There is absolutely no other reason why this rocket launcher would be firing from where it is. It would make much more sense to do this in a location without a major obstruction. But then they wouldn't be able to get civilians martyred for Allah.  H/T American Thinker

See right hand column video hizbollah use of civilian shields  

UN peacekeeper killed in Lebanon speaks out from the grave

Fox News Channel is reporting that an email written shortly before his death by a Canadian UN peacekeeper killed by Israeli forces in Lebanon states that it is unwise for them to be at their location, that Israeli forces have fired at the area several times due to "tactical necessity". It is pretty clear that tactical necessity means that Hezbollah was attacking Israel with rockets from near the UN position.

UN admits Hezbollah firing from near UN positions

Fox News Channel reported this morning that the UN claimed today that three UN positions have come under fire or near to fire from Israeli forces. The UN also then admitted that in those three cases Hezbollah fired from near the UN positions. Shouldn't be a surprise that Hezbollah is doing this (although it may be a surprise the UN actually admitted it).

The modern battlefield employs radar that detects rockets, artillery and mortars (RAM) and pin points the location it was fired from. The process takes seconds. In a case like this, you can't wait for eyes on target. You know exactly where the rounds came from and you fire on that location. It's called counter battery fire. It is the only technique that will allow an immediate suppression of a threat indirect firing position. It is nothing new and is not unique to Israel.

Hezbollah knows this and understands the media better than most Americans. Fire from near UN forces and the counter battery may get UN observers and upset the majority of people who are too naive to know what is happening here. Once again, our enemy has mastered using our own (and Israelis own) techniques against us in the propaganda war. Hezbollah, al Qaeda, all these terrorists know they can't break our military, so their main weapon is propaganda. Keep your eyes open out there folks, watch the videos from Lebanon versus just listening to the commentators. Often they tell two completely different stories.

What would Lincoln do?

Fox News

Brit Hume

Senate Democrats came out firing after reports that the Iraqi government would consider granting amnesty to insurgents who attacked U.S. troops. Democratic Leader Harry Reid called on the president to force Iraq to withdraw the plan. Carl Levin called it "unthinkable" and "unacceptable," and Chuck Schumer said the proposal "makes us think we don't have a real policy in Iraq."

But all three criticized the decision to disband the Iraqi army after the U.S. invasion, arguing that the coalition should have kept those soldiers who'd shot at Americans on active duty.

In 2003, Levin called it a "major mistake" to disband the army arguing that the coalition should reinstate mid-level officers and those below them.

Sigh...I know everything has to be politicized in DC, fine. But is it so hard to make a historical comparison to determine if this is a good or bad idea?

sparknotes :

After major Union victories at the battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln began preparing his plan for Reconstruction to reunify the North and South after the war’s end. Because Lincoln believed that the South had never legally seceded from the Union, his plan for Reconstruction was based on forgiveness. He thus issued the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction in 1863 to announce his intention to reunite the once-united states. Lincoln hoped that the proclamation would rally northern support for the war and persuade weary Confederate soldiers to surrender.

You know, it has been a long time since grade school, but didn't history treat him rather favorably for this? In fact, Lincoln is remembered more for bringing the Union back together than for winning the war. So are the democrats just ignorant of history, or do they just not care?

Zarqawi will be the tipping point

Okay, let me go out on a limb and just say what I am thinking. Al-Zarqawi’s death will make a huge difference. I won’t waste your time discussing all the arguments against this analysis. You know them already:

      Al Qaeda in Iraq is but one component of the insurgency.
      Al Zarqawi wasn’t that important anyway.
      Osama never liked him anyway.
      We can’t win militarily.

The fact is we can win militarily. Now to be sure, we need complimentary diplomatic, security, economic, and even humanitarian efforts. All these things are very important and have been important for the last three years.

But we can and will win militarily; I would argue won three years ago. Look at the numbers. We can only estimate what the numbers are, but they are crucial. There are three components to this insurgency; professional Mujahideen, Saddam supporters, and the disaffected who just want to make a buck and if they can get paid to blow stuff up, no problem.

Before the war, Mujahideen were poring into Iraq (disregarding either with or without Saddam’s behest). These were the Mujahideen who cut their teeth in Afghanistan, then moved on to the Balkans and then Chechnya. These guys went in first, the seriously hardcore. I can’t give an exact number, I am sure if one exists it is inaccurate anyway, but from my experience with ISG, as of 2004 these guys were dropping like flies. And things have only gotten worse for them nearly everywhere. Thousands of these guys are dead. They are dead because they were beaten militarily by the US and to some extent, coalition and Iraqi forces. Bottom line, we are killing off the hardcore guys.

Now they will be replaced by the new products of the Madrassas, younger terrorists, but that will take time and that is a luxury the Mujahideen do not have. They can not accomplish the political objective of establishing a Jihadist safe haven in Iraq unless some unforeseen spectacular event changes things dramatically. They may set off a few bombs a day, but they are defeated, they just don’t know it yet because nobody in their chain of command will ever admit it. Their fight will not end with a bang, but by a malaise of disinterest and shortage of bodies in the ranks. They are toast.

Now the Saddam supporters. Their motivation was to retain the power that they benefited from under Saddam. It has now been three years since the Sunni Arabs lost that power. They have to be in the adjustment phase. Iraqis are survivors and that means adjustment. They attacked the Shia repeatedly and have been getting a taste of their own medicine. I am betting they don’t like it. They can’t have helped but noticed they are surrounded. They are going down in a fit like a spoiled child, but they are going to come to their senses with the loss of the mythical Mujahideen. Now they will have no support from an external force. Now they will feel the full force of being surrounded and cut off. They also know that despite US casualties, the next US presidential election is three years away so that will not bring relief anytime soon. And they also have to realize as the Marines say “no better friend, no worse enemy”. They are not a stupid people and they are starting to come around. Many of them may have cooperated with the Mujahideen out of fear anyway. The bottom line is they are going to quiet down.

The disaffected will continue their work until the money dries up or other jobs are available, part of that economic support we must provide. They are not a significant long term problem.

In every battle there is a tipping point. Usually that point is not when a force realizes it can win, but when a force realizes it can not win and starts looking for the most beneficial endstate they can realistically achieve. The death of the mythical US defier is the point at which many in Iraq will realize they can not win despite what Murtha tells them. And with a stable government forming in Iraq now, it is better to be the US’s friend than its enemy.

So there it is, against the trend, but hey, if I am wrong, sue me (just kidding- don’t sue!)

http://op-for.com/

update: see Sam Pender's essay in the comments section. Nicely done.

Crap...Crap...Crap

Okay, I promised myself to keep silent on the accusations of atrocities committed by US soldiers. But the media war against the US military is now making this impossible. Note these glaring editorials contained in "reports":

BBC

The video tape obtained by the BBC shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with what our world affairs editor John Simpson says were clearly gunshot wounds.

Oh well, John said it and he is an expert. Note, not a forensics expert, not a medical doctor, not even a combat medic, but John the editor!

AP

But video shot by an AP Television News cameraman at the time and previously unaired shows at least five children dead. The video shows at least one adult male and four young children with obvious entry wounds to the head. One child has an obvious entry wound to the side caused by a bullet.

Oh, we don't even get John in the newsroom for this story. We just get an obvious entry wound caused by a bullet. Wow, you know there is a whole branch of medicine devoted to combat injuries. Hopefully we can get this writer to speak at the next seminar because Kim Gamel seems to be pretty on top of being able to triage a patient from a video.

And here is the most disturbing report. I saw this on another article as well, wish I could find the original, but this makes the point:

Washington Post

A Washington Post staff member in Iraq and staff writer Thomas E. Ricks and staff researcher Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this report.

A Washington Post staff member? They must be running out of anonymous sources because now they use anonymous writers for their stories. I mean I can understand anonymous sources, and I can even understand pen names, but when they won't even give me a name for a writer how can they expect me to just believe what they say? The answer, they don't care! The WP just wants to disgust you with shock value and who cares if it turns out to be untrue, as long as they turned a few more people against the war today.

Folks we are seeing the anti-war, Bush bashing media piling on like never before. The sharks have sensed blood in the water and lost all sense of journalistic integrity. We can't stop it, but we can do this...point this bull shit out!

update: within minutes of this posting Fox News is reporting that the troops in the AP story have been cleared by the investigation. We await for the details, and I don't want to speculate, but I have run stories here of soldiers reporting that terrorists and insurgents are shielding themselves with children. I believe them because I also ran a story of a captured document from al Qaeda in Iraq where they in fact boast about such dirty tricks. Now, Haditha may or may not be be the atrocity Murtha reported. I don't know. But when I see "Iraqi Human Rights" organization I am immediately suspicious because these are propagandist fronts in many cases. I don't believe a word that these Iraqis are saying. I don't believe their testimony. Now if there is proof from another source, then I will consider it. But there is an insurgent-media-human rights link in Iraq that is all aimed at discrediting the US. Remember the Fallujah fakeumentary? Read my analysis on this site.

confederate yankee has more

Hastert and the DOJ informant

Bob at Confederateyankee picks up the issue of Speaker of the House Denny Hastert claiming that the DOJ leak was a political reprisal from within DOJ for his stand against the seizure of Congressman Jefferson's effects at his congressional office. Bob thinks Hastert is seeing things, but I think Hastert is close to the mark. 

It seems to me, and this is just opinion as I have no proof, that someone in DOJ is throwing Hastert a brush back, but not for the reason the speaker thinks. I believe a democratic operative in the DOJ has recognized the potential to divide the republican party and smear Hastert in one shot. This informed source within DOJ has to know that Hastert is not under serious investigation. Maybe his name has came up along with the name of every other congressman or congresswoman when the DOJ started looking at ties and communications, so technically, this person is probably accurate when they say he is "in the mix" along with everybody else on the hill. And then Hastert comes out and blasts the President over the Jefferson search and seizure. A perfect chance to leak info on Hastert and make it look like retaliation from the Bush Admin.

Sounds too conspiratorial you say? It really isn't so grandiose a plan. One person with malicious intent could have done it. By definition, a conspiracy involves two or more people. So it is not a conspiracy.

Just too clever you say? Watch the Lindsey Lohan movie Mean Girls some time. A teen age girl would be able to come up with this plan. It is not a brilliant or clever plot, just the wrong person in the wrong place at the right time.

This is not unprecedented either: Washington Post

As the bureau's second- and third-ranking official during a period when the FBI was battling for its independence against the administration of President Richard M. Nixon, Felt had the means and the motive...

One person with means and motive, a political motive. Now to be sure, the mode of attack was more direct in the Felt case, but it is easy to make a comparison. One high official with means and motive leaked information to the press to bring down a President and was regarded as a hero. Doesn't sound so unbelievable now does it?