Panetta and CIA no Longer Going After Al Qaeda

We lost in Vietnam largely because our government did have the stomach (or political will) to put a 100% effort into securing a victory. Could it be that we will lose the war against terrorism and Al Qaeda for the same reason?

A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill Al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn't clear, and the CIA won't comment on its substance.

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Panetta ended it.

In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of Al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Panetta stopped.

The revelations about the CIA and its post-9/11 activities have emerged amid a renewed fight between the agency and congressional Democrats. Last week, seven Democratic lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee released a letter that talked about the CIA effort, which they said Panetta acknowledged hadn't been properly vetted with Congress. CIA officials had brought the matter to Panetta's attention and had recommended he inform Congress.

Neither Panetta nor the lawmakers provided details. Panetta quashed the CIA effort after learning about it June 23.

Read more...

Consequences of Obama's Cairo Speech

Muammar Qaddafi, who had become gratifyingly less belligerent since the Reagan administration's 1986 airstrikes, subsequent economic sanctions, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, came out of his box during a visit to Italy on June 11. "What's the difference," he asked in an address to Italian legislators, "between the U.S. airstrikes on our homes and bin Laden's actions?"

The difference is that the U.S. airstrikes of the 1980s were aimed primarily at military and government targets after Libyan planes fired missiles at U.S. carrier-based aircraft in international waters. The U.S. strike was also intended to punish Libya's complicity in the bombing of a discotheque in West Berlin frequented by off-duty American military personnel. Bin-Laden's attack on the World Trade Center was aimed at, and succeeded in, killing thousands of innocents as a means of expressing general hatred for the West and the U.S. in particular.

Qaddafi's equation of U.S. military responses to provocations of his own making--which followed Washington's extensive public and private warnings about American insistence on maintaining freedom of navigation in international waters--with bin Laden's surprise attack against civilians was offered up less than a week after President Obama's Cairo speech.

In this speech Obama called the 9/11 attacks "an enormous trauma to our country . . . that led us to act contrary to our ideals." Specifically, Guantanamo. The president reduced the evil of destroying several thousand innocents to a psychological episode that produced aberrant American behavior. Other parts of the same speech are equally unbalanced. "Israel must live up to its obligations" to allow Palestinians to lead decent lives. However, no such "obligation" exists for Palestinians to recognize Israel's right to exist.

No one should be surprised that Qaddafi's remarks followed Obama's so quickly. If the American president sees his international role as a great exhorter with a lot of explaining to do, why shouldn't the leaders of other countries, especially those who share serious misgivings about the role of the United States in the world join the chorus? If the "fight against negative stereotypes," as Obama put it, is what really stiffens the sinews and summons up the blood of the U.S. president, call in the speechwriters, act the role of the victim convincingly, and consider the attractive possibility that words may matter more than deeds in dealing with the United States--at least for a while.

Read more...

Quote of the Week

"If Al Qaeda wants to demolish the America we know and love, they'd better hurry because Obama's beating them to it."

---  Rush Limbaugh

Read more...

Obama Goes To Cairo

I'm sure the Obama Mid East trip will generate may articles over the next few days. I won't try to cover all of what Obama said earlier today. I will make a couple of comments...

The first thing to catch my attention was when Obama said "...I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against the negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Really? Since when, exactly? What other religions does Obama feel responsible to defend?

Let's take a look at one of the larger groups within our own country. A little religion you may have heard of somewhere along the way ... Christianity.

Has Obama been defending mainstream Christian groups who have been lumped in with the guy who shot George Tiller? Maybe I missed that.

I will give Obama credit, though. While many muslims, particularly in Egypt (from what I understand, anyway) have denied that al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, Obama said this:

"I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaeda killed nearly 3000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people... and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale.... These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with."

At least on this point, he gets it right. I wonder if his audience heard him.

Read more...

Obama Needs to be Even Nicer

Apparently all the apologies and bowing to the Muslim nations is not enough. During the 2008 campaign, Obama seemed to think that he could solve the problems in the middle east (not to mention Darfur, North Korea, Russia, and everywhere else in the world) if would just apologize to everyone and "be nice."  They'll all listen. They'll all be happy to work with us. They want peace. They want to be friends with the USA.

Really?

Apparently, Obama hasn't been nice enough. The AP is reporting today...

Al Qaeda chieftain Usama bin Laden warned Americans to "be prepared to receive the consequences" of the Obama and Bush administrations, Al Jazeera TV reported Wednesday.

Bin Laden, in a recorded message broadcast by the Arab news network, said Obama had planted the seeds for "revenge and hatred" toward the United States in the Muslim world, Reuters reported.

The message comes as President Obama arrived in Saudi Arabia, a day ahead of his speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University.

Bin Laden says Obama inflamed hatred by ordering Pakistan to crack down on militants in Swat Valley and block Islamic law in the area.

He claimed U.S. pressure led to a campaign of "killing, fighting, bombing and destruction" that prompted the exodus of a million Muslims from Swat Valley in northwest Pakistan.

The message was broadcast at almost the same moment Obama touched down in Saudi Arabia.

FBI official says that — while the tape may appear real — investigators are reviewing the recording for authenticity and any other information that may help them.

The timing of this tape is not a coincidence given the timing of the president's Mideast trip.

Read more...