28 Jan

Traitor, Not a Whistleblower: John Kiriakou

                                       

Last Friday, ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison by federal judge Leonie Brinkema under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. It’s the first time that a CIA officer will serve prison time for disclosing classified information to news media.

The judge rejected his claims that he acted in the interests of the nation as a whistleblower:

A plea deal required the judge to impose a sentence of 2 1/2 years. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said she would have given John Kiriakou much more time if she could.

Kiriakou’s supporters describe him as a whistleblower who exposed aspects of the CIA’s use of torture against detained terrorists. Prosecutors said he was merely seeking to increase his fame by trading on his insider knowledge.

Kiriakou’s 2007 interviews about the interrogations of al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah were among the first by a CIA insider confirming reports that several detainees had been waterboarded.

How exactly is he a whistleblower when the issue of waterboarding had already been leaked by the time he “spoke out”?

Kiriakou’s claims in 2007:

In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

“The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate,” said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News’ “World News With Charles Gibson” and “Nightline.”

“From that day on, he answered every question,” Kiriakou said. “The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”

~~~

Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.

“Like a lot of Americans, I’m involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique,” Kiriakou told ABC News. “And I struggle with it.”

And then of course, there was his self-serving 2010 book, Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror. After 190 pages into a 192 page book, we get this beautiful admission:

What I told Brian Ross in late 2007 was wrong on a couple of counts. I suggested that Abu Zubaydah had lasted only thirty or thirty-five seconds during his waterboarding before he begged his interrogators to stop; after that, I said he opened up and gave the agency actionable intelligence. I wasn’t there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I’d heard and read inside the agency at the time. Now, we know that Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded eighty-three times in a single month, raising questions about how much useful information he actually supplied. In retrospect, it was a valuable lesson in how the CIA uses the arts of deception even among its own.

The national debate on waterboarding and other forms of torture got a second wind early in Obama’s presidency, and I’m proud to have played a small part in it.

Get that? He never actually witnessed the act of waterboarding by CIA interrogators. He acted on hearsay. And now he wants to play the role of martyred, conscientious whistleblower.

Kiriakou is not a patriot but a traitor who has endangered lives of patriots for his own glory-seeking:

In court papers, prosecutors said the investigation of Kiriakou began in 2009 when authorities became alarmed after discovering that detainees at Guantanamo Bay possessed photographs of CIA and FBI personnel who had interrogated them. The investigation eventually led back to Kiriakou, according to a government affidavit.

Prosecutors said Kiriakou leaked the name of a covert operative to a journalist, who disclosed it to an investigator working for the lawyer of a Guantanamo detainee.

Kiriakou was initially charged under the World War I-era Espionage Act, but those charges were dropped as part of a plea bargain.

NYTimes:

Judge Brinkema said, “This is not a case of a whistle-blower.” She went on to describe how the identity of the C.I.A. officer working under cover had been revealed by Mr. Kiriakou’s disclosures, and the damage it had caused the agency, based on a sealed statement from the undercover agent.

Moments before issuing the sentence, Judge Brinkema asked Mr. Kiriakou if he had anything to say. When he declined, the judge said, “Perhaps you have already spoken too much.”

After the hearing, Mr. Kiriakou, who did not begin his sentence on Friday and was allowed to leave the courthouse, addressed members of the news media for a few minutes.

“I come out of the court positive, confident and optimistic,” he said, thanking supporters.

Sentenced and condemned in a court of law, Kiriakou seeks to win in the court of public opinion, buoyed by the support of the misguided anti-torture activists. And of course he has his supporters in high places:

This week, Bruce O. Riedel, who was appointed by President Obama to lead a review of United States policies in Afghanistan, sent a letter to the president asking him to commute Mr. Kiriakou’s sentence. The letter was signed by many others, including former C.I.A. officers.

Commute an already light 2 1/2 yr sentence? Really?!

In subsequent e-mail exchanges with a freelance writer, Mr. Kiriakou disclosed the name of one of his former colleagues, who was still under cover and had been a part of the detention and interrogation program.

The freelancer later passed the name of the undercover agent to lawyers representing several Qaeda suspects being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The lawyers later included the name in a sealed legal filing, angering government officials and kick-starting the federal investigation that ultimately ensnared Mr. Kiriakou. The name was not disclosed publicly at the time, but it appeared on an obscure Web site last October. In January 2012, federal prosecutors indicted Mr. Kiriakou, accusing him of disclosing the identity of an agency analyst who had worked on the 2002 raid that led to Abu Zubaydah’s capture and interrogation.

The prosecutors said Mr. Kiriakou had been a source for a New York Times article in 2008 written by Scott Shane that said a C.I.A. employee named Deuce Martinez had played a role in the interrogation. When Mr. Kiriakou pleaded guilty last October, the charges stemming from that disclosure were dropped along with several others.

Prosecutors raised questions this week about Mr. Kiriakou’s contrition. In a filing, prosecutors cited a lengthy article by Mr. Shane published this month in The Times in which he quoted Mr. Kiriakou as saying that if he had known that the C.I.A. officer was still under cover, he would not have disclosed his identity.

The prosecutors said that Mr. Kiriakou’s intimation that the disclosure was an “accident or mistake” contradicted his plea that he had willfully disclosed the information.

This is the man lionized on the left as some sort of anti-torture hero. And this is just rich:

The most surreal aspect of the sentencing was the huge emphasis placed on how Kiriakou’s action endangered the supposedly-undercover officer and damaged the CIA’s ability to collect intelligence. But the public never heard a single word about how exactly the officer’s life was “endangered” (only that some family members had not known he worked for the CIA) because that assessment was in a secret statement that even the defendant was not allowed to see–because the government pulled Kiriakou’s security clearance the day before–specifically so he could not see what “damage” he was about to go to jail for causing.

If the “supposedly-undercover officer” had the name “Valerie Plame”, then the left would be in an uproar.

John Kiriakou: Self-serving scumbag. Acting out of self-interest, not concern for national-interests.

Here he is on The Today Show, today:

YouTube Preview Image

*UPDATE*

Forgot to add mention, as a side note, the following related interest:

Watching ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ with the CIA: Separating fact from fiction

AEI’s Marc Thiessen (author of “Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack”) will host a panel discussion with three CIA veterans who were involved in the hunt for bin Laden.

Panelists:
General Michael Hayden (ret.), Former Director CIA
John A. Rizzo, Former Chief Legal Officer at CIA
Jose Rodriguez, Former Director National Clandestine Service

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 | 10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

This entry was posted in CIA interrogation program, The Plame Affair. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, January 28th, 2013 at 9:31 am
| 511 views

25 Responses to Traitor, Not a Whistleblower: John Kiriakou

  1. jacob gabel says: 1

    I was tortured for almost 3 years by the FBI and their friends only
    because 85 years old man, Roland, H Sibens(chicago)now he is 88, convinced them that I
    am a terrorist. I was tortured for working on my prosthetic legs in
    the basement. I done absolutely nothing illegal or wrong. They thought
    that in theory it is possible to hide bomb in them. They saw an
    opportunity to get famous, so they were trying to torture me till I
    sign their insane story. They tortured me using more than 100
    different torturing methods and trust to me waterboarding is not how
    they torture nowadays. I dont know where to find justice.

    I think that after 9/11 things got out of control. Freedom fighters
    became tyrants. In 1945, most Germans had an opportunity to learn about Nazis death
    camps. I hope that one day American citizens will get chance to learn about people
    like me, who were tortured with no reason for years.

    ReplyReply
  2. Wordsmith says: 2

    Why are you spamming up the internet with your cut-and-paste drivel?

    ReplyReply
  3. jacob gabel says: 3

    I want people to know that they can be tortured by their own gov just because of misunderstanding for some greater good. It seems like majority of people in our country support torture.

    I am white and christian, also I am disabled man. I lost both of my legs in a car accident when I was 20. I want those who support torture to know that our gov saved no one by torturing me and that they r partially responsible for what happened to me.

    ReplyReply
  4. Nan G says: 4

    I know (and have known) many men who did things they were told to never share with the public.
    A boss I had when I was a private investigator was one of those men.
    He had been in special forces, the Navy.

    He had a very troubled demeanor from time to time.
    He got real quiet.
    He also went off the rails with drink from time to time.
    But he NEVER broke and told about things that were top secret.
    It was part of his character.

    When he was killed in a multi-car pile up (not his fault) he took to his grave lots of secrets.
    He was a man of integrity.

    ReplyReply
  5. john says: 5

    The US government now states that Abu Zubaydah was never a member of Al Qaeda. The group that he was with was at odds with the Arabs. That was why he had to be waterboarded 83 times, because he did not have the information that the interrogators wanted him to divulge.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah But, in September 2009, the Obama administration acknowledged during Abu Zubaydah’s habeas corpus petition, that Abu Zubaydah had never been a member of al-Qaeda, nor involved in the attacks on the African embassies in 1998, nor the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.[165] The motion, filed by the United States Government, states:
    Evidence indicating that Petitioner is not a member of al-Qaida or had ideological differences with al-Qaida is not inconsistent with the factual allegations made in the Government’s factual return, because the Government has not contended in this proceeding that Petitioner was a member of al-Qaida or otherwise formally identified with al-Qaida. Pg. 35, 36
    Respondent [The United States Government] does not contend that Petitioner [Abu Zubaydah] was a “member” of al-Qaida in the sense of having sworn a bayat (allegiance) or having otherwise satisfied any formal criteria that either Petitioner [Abu Zubaydah] or al-Qaida may have considered necessary for inclusion in al-Qaida. Nor is the Government detaining Petitioner [Abu Zubaydah] based on any allegation that Petitioner [Abu Zubaydah] views himself as part of al-Qaida as a matter of subjective personal conscience, ideology, or worldview. Pg. 36
    The Government has not contended in this proceeding that Petitioner [Abu Zubaydah] had any direct role in or advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Pg. 82
    For example, for purposes of this proceeding the Government has not contended that Petitioner [Abu Zubaydah] had any personal involvement in planning or executing either the 1998 embassy bombings… or the attacks on September 11, 2001. Pg. 34
    [edit]
    Because of the torture it is now going to be very difficult to convict anyone either in a military commission format.
    There have only been 6 convictions at Gitmo in 10 years ,4 were plea bargains (mostly for essentially time served; 2 done as favors to foreign conservative governments in Australia and Canada) the only 2 convictions by the military commission court were both recently overturned in Federal Court. Had KSM been tried in New York 3 years ago he would have pled guilty and been already sentenced (he was/is hoping for the death penalty) but because of public opposition from the right wing, Holder agreed to have the trials in Gitmo. There has been?will continue to be little hope of conviction there.

    ReplyReply
  6. Wordsmith says: 6

    @jacob gabel: Okay, tell me more. Please elaborate upon your story. How did the FBI from 2009-12 apply “more than 100 different torturing methods” on you?

    ReplyReply
  7. john says: 7

    As far as him being “lionized” by the left, as many on the right did the same for his apparent approval of torture. http://www.navytimes.com/news/2013/01/ap-verdict-reversals-guantanamo-trials-012713/
    This is the link about the verdicts being overturned.

    ReplyReply
  8. Wordsmith says: 8

    @john:

    The US government now states that Abu Zubaydah was never a member of Al Qaeda.

    That’s not news. However, KSM also wasn’t a member of al-Qaeda all the way up through the planning stages of 9/11. So as the “mastermind” of 9/11 since he hadn’t sworn bayat yet to bin Laden’s group, should he be disregarded as someone of no significance and of no consequence?

    al-Qaeda is only a namebrand. It’s larger than just one man or one terror organization, as President Bush stated in the beginning.

    “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”
    -President Bush in an address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, United States Capitol, Washington D.C., September 20, 2001.

    It’s why so many terror threats, attacks, plots foiled involve either al-Qaeda or an affiliate of al-Qaeda/terror-links to al-Qaeda. We are more properly at war with the al-Qaeda network and affiliates. A global jihad movement.

    ReplyReply
  9. Wordsmith says: 9

    Furthermore, whether or not Zubaydah had sworn bayat or not to OBL is irrelevant to his knowledge of and cooperation with al-Qaeda operatives and senior leadership (including KSM); and his long-time seniority role as a terror leader and suspect.

    ReplyReply
  10. Nan G says: 10

    @Wordsmith: Furthermore, whether or not Zubaydah had sworn bayat or not to OBL is irrelevant to his knowledge of and cooperation with al-Qaeda operatives and senior leadership (including KSM); and his long-time seniority role as a terror leader and suspect.

    Great point, Word.
    When you’re dealing with an underground organization rather than a state-sanctioned spy you just can never know.
    In fact in WWII the Nazis shot down a civilian plane because they were so sure one passenger, actor Leslie Howard, was a spy for the Brits/allies.
    No admission has ever been officially made, however.

    KSM did the work of an Islamic terrorist leader.
    IF he were freed he would be honored by Islamists in many countries.
    And the USA would be putting another nail in its weak horse’s shoe.
    We would, by our weakness, be accelerating the jihad against our portion of Dal al Harb, the world outside of Islam.

    ReplyReply
  11. jacob gabel says: 11

    @Wordsmith: Well, you dont want to know the details of their torturing procedures, and it is hard to describe them. for example, ass penetration with a piece of wood.

    ReplyReply
  12. Aye says: 12

    @jacob gabel:

    for example, ass penetration with a piece of wood.

    Wow…that’s quite a tale. Did they penetrate your skull with sawdust too?

    ReplyReply
  13. Pingback: Obama ‘The Peaceful’ To Keep Gitmo Open | Flopping Aces

  14. Wordsmith says: 13

    @john:

    Because of the torture it is now going to be very difficult to convict anyone either in a military commission format.

    FBI: Concerned with convictions for past crime. CIA: Concerned with preventing future terror attacks.

    There have only been 6 convictions at Gitmo in 10 years ,4 were plea bargains (mostly for essentially time served; 2 done as favors to foreign conservative governments in Australia and Canada) the only 2 convictions by the military commission court were both recently overturned in Federal Court.

    I suppose this is why the current administration has gone into the kill over capture business. Somehow killing is much more humane than sleep deprivation and playing Barney music over and over again- might muddy the possibility of getting a conviction during trial:

    former CIA Director Michael Hayden added that the administration has made capturing terrorists for interrogation such a “third rail” that it’s better for soldiers and CIA operatives to kill their targets rather than face a “legally difficult and politically dangerous” climate.

    John further wrote:

    Had KSM been tried in New York 3 years ago he would have pled guilty and been already sentenced (he was/is hoping for the death penalty) but because of public opposition from the right wing, Holder agreed to have the trials in Gitmo.

    Public outcry and opposition was by majority Americans. Overwhelmingly, and not the right-wing.

    Still Bush’s fault?

    And there were no legitimate concerns or issues at all with having KSM tried in civilian court, in NY, right?

    Too bad OBL missed his public court appearance as well. My thanks to President Obama for that one!

    @Nan G:

    Great point, Word.
    When you’re dealing with an underground organization rather than a state-sanctioned spy you just can never know.

    Going further in depth….

    anti-torture FBI agent Ali Soufan’s The Black Banner, pg 373:

    While he was not a member of al-Qaeda, his role as external emir of Khaldan was of considerable importance. Senior al-Qaeda members, such as Khallad, regularly turned to Abu Zubaydah for help with passports and travel. In turn, al-Qaeda guaranteed Abu Zubaydah’s protection elsewhere in Afghanistan, and he often stayed in their guesthouses. He was one of their most important cogs in the shadowy network that we were struggling to disrupt.

    Anti-torture journalists Josh Meyer and Terry McDermott, pg 4-5 The Hunt for KSM:

    An intercepted phone call indicated that one of the group might be a man known as Abu Zubaydah, who had long-standing and close ties to the terror group’s inner circle of leadership. The estimation of Zubaydah’s precise role within Al Qaeda had frequently changed over the previous decade and even then remained fuzzy to the Americans. They nonetheless viewed him as a major figure, one who would know important Al Qaeda secrets.

    Seth G. Jones Hunting in the Shadows, pg 90-1:

    His initial request to join al Qa’ida in 1993 was rejected, apparently because he was a “generalist” and al Qa’ida leaders were l0oking for someone with “niche skills.” But he was obstinate.

    ~~~

    Over the next decade Zubaydah became one of the most ruthless international terrorists, with a close connection to senior al Qa’ida officials. Though not a formal member of al Qa’ida, he developed a personal relationship with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, and even Osama bin Laden.

    ~~~

    By 2001, Zubaydah was running several training camps and guesthouses for foreign fighters in Afghanistan, including the Khaldan training camp near Khowst Province, as well as a series of guesthouses in Pakistan, primarily in Islamabad. The guesthouses were used as temporary residences by foreign fighters on their way to- or back from- the Khaldan camp. Khaldan was not under the control of al Qa’ida, though Zubaydah knew many of the members. He pulled the plug around April 2000, not long after bin Laden told him that “it would be better if Khaldan camp remainds closed.” Bin Laden wanted to unify the unwieldy network of foreign fighters operating in Afghanistan under his umbrella.

    For someone who was “not a member of al Qaeda”, he was of a level of importance that he knew and unwittingly gave up KSM’s secret operative name, “Mukhtar”.

    Anti-torture torture apologist, Jose Rodriguez, Hard Measures, pg 58:

    Critics have said that AZ was not nearly as significant a player as we portrayed him as being. The truth, however, is that he was perfectly placed to answer the questions we had. As an al-Qa’ida fascilitator, he knew all the major players in the organization. He knew where they came from, where they went, who they worked with, what they looked like, and how they were motivated. If you could have picked one person associated with al-Qa’ida at the time to interrogate, other than bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, themselves, it would have been Abu Zubaydah. Not only was he on our radar for plots against the United States, but he was also believed to have been behind a plot that was narrowly thwarted in Amman, Jordan, in December 1999, which involved huge amounts of explosives that could have killed thousands. As a Palestinian, AZ wanted to strike out against Jordan for “selling out” to Israel. Critics mistakenly assume that you have to nab the top person in a terrorist organization to stop a plot. The truth is that one of the best ways to disrupt terrorists is to know something about the group’s organizational plumbing so that you can identify the critical nodes that, if attacked, will derail planning and plot preparations. This was the kind of knowledge that AZ had to a greater degree than almost anyone else at this point in al-Qa’ida’s evolution.

    anti-torture torture denier Marc Thiessen, Courting Disaster pg80-2:

    After Zubaydah was captured, some in the news media tried to downplay his importance. These efforts to discredit Zubaydah have continued unabated to this day. In 2009, for example, the Washington Post published a front-page story entitled “Detainee’s Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots.”

    ~~~

    This is absurd. Let’s assume for a moment that the statement that Zubaydah was “not a member of al Qaeda” were true. So what? According to CIA documents declassified at former Vice President Cheney’s request, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, was also not an “official member of al Qaeda” until well after the 9/11 attacks. After his capture, KSM told his CIA de-briefers that he intentionally did not swear bayat (the pledge of loyalty to bin Laden) until after September 2001 so that he could have ignored a decision by the al Qaeda leadership to cancel the 9/11 attacks.

    What this means is that, at the time he was planning the biggest al Qaeda operation in history, KSM was not an “official member” of the terror network. If KSM had been captured before he swore bayat, should he have been dismissed as unimportant because he was not an “official member of al Qaeda”? Of course not. The same holds true for Zubaydah. According to the Office of the Director of the National Intelligence, “Although he never pledged bay’ah to Usama bin Laden, Abu Zubaydah functioned as a full member of al-Qa’ida and was a trusted associate of al-Qa’ida’s senior leaders.” The agency had in its hands a man who was close to Osama bin Laden and deeply involved in al Qaeda’s training and operational activities.

    In his memoir [shall I cite from Tenet's book as well for John, or is this sufficient?-ws], former CIA Director George Tenet calls the stories debunking Zubaydah’s importance “baloney” and says, “Those accounts are dead wrong.” And terrorism researcher Tom Joscelyn, who has reported extensively on Zubaydah, has written, “The Post‘s reporting is utterly wrong. A review of readily available public sources easily debunks the argument that Zubaydah was not a senior al Qaeda member.”

    But former CIA Director Mike Hayden also makes a compelling argument that whether the critics are right or wrong about Zubaydah’s seniority really doesn’t matter. “Let me concede for the point of argument, he wasn’t a senior operative. But everyone agrees he was their travel agent. I mean, he knows what we want to know.”

    According to Zubaydah’s official U.S. government biography, “Bin Ladin recruited him to be one of al Qa’ida’s senior travel facilitators following Zubaydah’s success in 1996 at securing safe passage of al Qa’ida senior members returning from Sudan to Afghanistan. In November 2001, Abu Zubaydah helped smuggle now deceased al-Qa’ida in Iraq leader Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi [who didn't officially swear bayat to OBL until sometime after OIF and starting AQiI- ws] and some 70 Arab fighters out of Kandahar, Afghanistan, into Iran.”

    In other words, even if Zubaydah was just a “fixer” or “travel agent” for al Qaeda- the man who moved terrorists in and out of Afghanistan and then deployed them around the world- it would mean he knew the identities, plans, and locations of hundreds of al Qaeda terrorists. So if the critics were right about Zubaydah’s seniority (which they were not), he would still be- by their own admission- one of the most important terrorists ever to come into American hands.

    And of course, Thiessen goes on to relay why the interrogation of Zubaydah yielded a vast array of intell information.

    ReplyReply
  15. jacob gabel
    UNLESS YOU SUFFER OF ALZEIMER DELUSION, WHICH MAKE A PERSON BELIEVE SOMETHING NOT REAL,
    I don’t see no reason why you would lie. AND FOR WHAT COUNTRY WOULD THEY THINK YOU ARE TERRORIST?
    YOUR NAME SUGGEST JEWISH AM I RIGHT?
    can you tell when this torture happen what year, and give a name
    or the 3 names of those FBI OFFICERS, SO WE CAN VERIFY AND EXPOSE THEM
    FOR TORTURING A PERSON ON A STATEMENT OF ONE PERSON WITHOUT PROOF.
    THEY DESERVE TO BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS PUBLICLY.
    BEST TO YOU

    ReplyReply
  16. Wordsmith says: 15

    @Wordsmith:

    [shall I cite from Tenet's book as well for John, or is this sufficient?-ws]

    Sure? Why not?

    Tenet’s At the Center of the Storm, pg 146-7:

    (When we captured Zubaydah in Pakistan in March 2002, some media accounts suggested that he was not such an important player. Those accounts are dead wrong. Worse yet, it has been suggested that the Bush administration exaggerated his importance in their comments to the media- again dead wrong. I believe to this day that Abu Zubaydah was an important player in al-Qa’ida operations.)

    ReplyReply
  17. Amalgovinus says: 16

    @Wordsmith:

    “A global jihad movement.”

    One the US helped to create in the 80s, and will continue to nurture in creating a valid enemy for their hatred by inflicting violent injustice on the world. The US will always have enemies because it seeks nothing but to create them. The war machine couldn’t be happier.

    ReplyReply
  18. Wordsmith says: 17

    @Amalgovinus:

    One the US helped to create in the 80s,

    So we’re hated and we’re to be blamed for supporting Muslims against the Soviets? To come to their rescue in Bosnia? First Gulf War?

    You realize that the US did not fund Osama bin Laden? He funded his own group. And a number of the Mujahideen we did support became the Northern Alliance that warred with the Taliban.

    Muslim countries also supported mujahideen groups against the Soviet invasion; and are the same countries whose governments find themselves at odd with jihadi groups, like al-Qaeda. It’s not just a “U.S. thing”. Nor is it an enemy of our creation. That would be a gross oversimplification. Opposition to our influence, support for Israel, occupation of the Arabian peninsula, U.S. foreign policy etc. are part of the equation; but does not explain, excuse, nor account for the other factor: Radical Islam and jihadism.

    Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with forming alliances and supporting other groups and governments at one point in history, only to be at odds with them later on. It does not invalidate the earlier alliance. There are no permanent alliances and friendships.

    ReplyReply
  19. Wordsmith
    they really got back at the US, BY SUPPORTING AN ANTI AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO BE
    after PRESIDENT BUSH END HIS TERM,
    I think it was their strategy all along to plant a hater in the WHITE HOUSE,
    THEY OWN SHARES IN MANY MEDIAS and they command what they want, they own the UN
    which does any thing they want done,
    it cost them a lot of money to realize their wish in 2008,
    but there is no problem with money for them, they see result now, they have now here their own MEDIA
    and are anxiously waiting for the full circle to be join.
    that’s my take, AMERICA is in to her neck, how does she will get out of it, and return to her roots,
    someone in GOVERNMENT TODAY AT FOX SAID AMERICA IS NOT THE SAME, IT CHANGED RADICALY,
    NOW TAKE NOTE, WE WON’T LET HER DIE
    bye

    ReplyReply
  20. Amalgovinus says: 19

    [quote]Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with forming alliances and supporting other groups and governments at one point in history[/quote]

    Funny, that’s certainly not a luxury extended to anyone else in the world. If someone in the 90s aided an enemy of America, to our military that is certainly a demerit against them, and possibly even just cause for illegally detaining them; but if instead America trained and funded terrorists, it was simply a logical choice given the circumstances of the time.

    And now you’re telling me our actions at the time were justifiable because “Well, the soviets did it”? It’s easy to blame Islam for everything when you can claim unabashedly that your own actions (which generated their hatred to begin with) were justified more or less by our ignorance.

    And look how wonderfully our power play attempts worked out–now we have “enemies” in the region with entirely just reasons for hating the US (look up why OBL feels the way he does about the US–it has more to do with bombings in Lebanon than any fairy tale about hating freedom). Using the same logic that got us into this mess, now our military we create more “enemies” by the day through objectively unjust and cruel treatment of non-americans.

    With your mindset, there will always be an enemy.

    Are you still licking your wounds about Iraq, or have you finally realized that that whole thing was a terrible idea?

    ReplyReply
  21. Wordsmith says: 20

    @Amalgovinus:

    Funny, that’s certainly not a luxury extended to anyone else in the world. If someone in the 90s aided an enemy of America, to our military that is certainly a demerit against them, and possibly even just cause for illegally detaining them; but if instead America trained and funded terrorists, it was simply a logical choice given the circumstances of the time.

    And now you’re telling me our actions at the time were justifiable because “Well, the soviets did it”?

    I think you completely are missing my point, sir.

    All nations do what they deem is within their best interest at the time. There are no permanent friendships and alliances. If nations become enemies down the road, it does not invalidate alliance decisions made, previously.

    When Commodore Matthew Perry sailed into Tokyo harbor and the United States helped modernize Japan’s military, were we somehow responsible for bringing about Pearl Harbor? Today, Japan and the U.S. are allies. Should we still be enemies?

    Was it wrong for Roosevelt to align us with Stalin against Hitler, even then knowing the threat that the Soviet Union would pose?

    Alliances are sometimes made because we must choose the lesser of two evils. Hence forming treaties with brutal dictators (because the alternative would be much worse). When Carter all but abandoned the deeply pro-American Shah of Iran because he was an imperfect dictator, it ushered in the current regime Iran enjoys today. Less freedom for their people, a threat to world stability. They wanted something better; instead, they got something worse. How will Egypt go? Are we and Egypt better off, now that Mubarak is out of power?

    It’s easy to blame Islam for everything when you can claim unabashedly that your own actions (which generated their hatred to begin with) were justified more or less by our ignorance.

    Are you new around here? Shooting from the hip before getting to know the players?

    I am anything but anti-Islam. But Islam is not exempt as part of the problem. Much of the anti-Americanism is fueled by misperceptions, distortions, propaganda, and conspiracy theories as much as anything grounded in reality when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. Have we been perfect? Of course not. But what nation ever is? What nation does not look out for its best interest?

    (look up why OBL feels the way he does about the US–it has more to do with bombings in Lebanon than any fairy tale about hating freedom).

    Nope. Some of his grievances have to do directly with his Islamic beliefs, fueled by Qutb and Ibn Taymiyyah. The fundamentalists and puritanical salafists hate our way of life- our immorality and decadent, godless lifestyle and culture. And yes, some of it does have to do with American foreign policy- or rather, the deranged interpretation and perception of it (our presence on the Arabian peninsula, at the invite of the Saudi royals and to protect other Muslims from Saddam’s tyranny when he invaded Kuwait?); our alliance with Israel. But these are also excuses. In their absence, jihadist ideology would still find a reason to war with the U.S. and non-Islamists (including fellow Muslims, not sufficiently Islamic enough for them).

    Are you still licking your wounds about Iraq, or have you finally realized that that whole thing was a terrible idea?

    I am happy Saddam and his murderous sons are gone; that over a decade of deceit and defiance was finally dealt with when the UN did not have the gonads to enforce its own 16 + 1 UNSCRs.

    ReplyReply
  22. IRAQ A TERRIBLE IDEA? NO
    WAS 9/11 NUMBER 1 A TERRIBLE IDEA? YES
    HOW DARE THEY CAME IN AMERICA TO KILL AND DESTROY?
    WHERE WE SUPPOSE TO SWALLOW THE BLOOD SPILL
    AND APOLOGIZE? NO
    THE WORSE OF THEM WAS IRAQ, AND IT HAD TO BE SHAKEN LIKE A RAG,
    THE PROBLEM IS THAT COMPASSION THE MILITARY HAVE SINCE AMERICA IS BORN,
    THEY ARE TOLERANT AND COMPASSIONATE SO MUCH AS TO LEAVE SOME STANDING UP,
    WHERE THE WHOLE IRAQ SHOULD HAVE BEEN ERADICATE, BUT NO
    THE AMERICANS REMEMBER THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE; IS THERE SOME JUST PEOPLE LEFT?
    AND THEY FOUND THE JUST AND HELP THEM GET RID OF A TYRANT WITH BLOODY HANDS,

    ReplyReply
  23. Wordsmith says: 22

    John Kiriakou: Self-serving scumbag. Acting out of self-interest, not concern for national-interests.

    I admit, this is a bit harsh and I was speaking out of knee-jerk anger. I’ve been going back through his self-serving 2009 book and believe the man is a patriot; but made bad decisions that deserved prosecution; and that he is now tweaking his tune and trumpeting himself as a whistleblower to gain acceptance and public support from the outraged anti-torture crowd. He is now merely a man who’s done some good things in the past, trying to salvage his reputation and legacy.

    ReplyReply
  24. WORDSMITH
    IF YOU SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HIM,
    I think it was true, from what I know of you,
    even the criminals do good thing for who they care for,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  25. Mark says: 24

    John Kiriakou is a traitor. In this case he gave classified information to the media instead of a foreign government. This Whistle Blower mantle is nonense. He was not trying to stop any illegal action. The enhanced interrogation methods were legal and everyone in our government knew about them. John Kiriakoua’s motives were personal gain. He was hoping to become a media star.The judge was correct, he should have been given more jail time. Note he still may become a media star after he finishes his sentence.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>