New, more comfortable leg shackles, used to restrain detainees are shown in a room where detainees meet their lawyers in the maximum security Camp Six at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba September 4, 2007. REUTERS/Joe Skipper

Lawfare Blog has a roundup of some of the latest news regarding the “GWoT”:

The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson interviews Ali Soufan, the author of The Black Banners, on former CIA official Jose Rodriguez. And Jane Sutton of Reuters reports that defense counsel for the alleged 9/11 co-conspirators have requested that Rodriguez be called to testify in the military commission case.

Attorney for Abu Zubaydah Joseph Margulies has this op-ed in the LA Times urging the U.S. to charge his client with a crime. And CBS News interviewed Margulies as well.

In a Senate Judiciary Hearing, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said that the FBI is investigating how details about the Al Qaeda plot that was thwarted was leaked to the Associated Press. Michael Schmidt at the New York Times reports. And Corey Flintoff at NPR attempts to answer the question of why terrorists target planes, collecting responses from a number of analysts and scholars.

I’ve been going through The Black Banners, Courting Disaster, Hard Measures, The Interrogator (by Glen Carle), John Kiriakou’s The Reluctant Spy, The Hunt for KSM, and other related material to try and make sense of the discrepancies, alternate perspectives and accounts. So I’ve looked forward to Ali Soufan’s interview by Amy Davidson in wake of Rodriguez’s book.

Will Rodriguez answer back with a rebuttal?

Recent article co-authored by Glenn Carle. Unfortunately, all this opinion piece seems to do is launch into is the same broad-brushed hyperbole that sees no difference or distinction between the CTC’s EIT program and the Spanish Inquisition’s torture program. Danielle Celermajer and Glenn Carle want to talk in excess about the subject of torture. So…what exactly does their favorite pet peeve topic have to do with enhanced interrogation techniques? It’s like they’re piggybacking the controversy over the CIA’s CTC program to plug Carle’s book and the tortured topic of torture.

On a side note, check out Hank Crumpton’s new book, The Art of Intelligence:

At the heart of Mr. Crumpton’s memoir, “The Art of Intelligence,” is an engrossing tale of how a seasoned CIA officer spearheaded the first campaign in America’s war on terror. Under his direction, in the fall of 2001, small teams of CIA operatives and U.S. Special Forces, together with Afghan allies, came to kill thousands of al Qaeda and Taliban combatants and to break their hold on Afghanistan in less than three months. Even though Osama bin Laden slipped away, and the Taliban eventually returned to foment a new insurgency in Afghanistan, this ground-breaking campaign was a success beyond all reasonable expectations.

Daily Beast has an excerpt, recounting “the full story of the first American to die in combat in Afghanistan—and how his wife responded.”

It’s worth the read…and the remembrance.

The date of the terrorist attack is frozen on a calendar covered in ash at a bank on Broadway, about a block from the World Trade Center. The bank has not reopened. (By David Karp, AP)

Click here to view the embedded video.

During the arraignment hearings, this comment was drowned out by white noise when the court security officer thought classified information might be mentioned. However, upon review, The Pentagon office in charge of the military commission tribunals decided nothing compromising was revealed and released a transcript on Wednesday.

Schwartz’ “big boy pants” was a snide reference to Jose Rodriguez (who proudly linked it onto his book’s Facebook wall) and his 60 Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl in which Rodriguez said,

Jose Rodriguez: We needed to get everybody in government to put their big boy pants on and provide the authorities that we needed.

Lesley Stahl: Their big boy pants on–

Jose Rodriguez: Big boy pants. Let me tell you, I had had a lot of experience in the agency where we had been left to hold the bag. And I was not about to let that happen for the people that work for me.

Lesley Stahl: There wasn’t gonna be any deniability on this one?

Jose Rodriguez: There was not gonna be any deniability. And I tell you something. In August of 2002, I felt I had all the authorities that I needed, all the approvals that I needed. The atmosphere in the country was different. Everybody wanted us to save American lives.

I believe that the mention of torture and the apparent religious observations are merely ploys.

Debra Saunders alludes to the following passage on page 82-83 of Hard Measures:

Also found at the site was a spare prosthetic leg belonging to AQ operative Walid bin Attash. Sadly, bin Attash wasn’t connected to it at the time. Some of our people discovered that bin Attash had frequented online dating websites and described himself as someone who “Loves to travel- sometimes at a moment’s notice.” It took us six more months, but finally we captured him in Karachi in April 2003 and put a serious dent in his social life.

Debra Saunders writes:

On Saturday, Attash was one of five defendants charged with 2,976 counts of murder for their role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It would seem that Attash has grown very devout at Guantanamo Bay. His civilian attorney Cheryl Bormann wore a hijab and abaya at the military pre-trial hearing. She even suggested that female prosecutors dress in more “appropriate” fashion in deference to the defendants’ “fear of committing a sin under their faith.” According to news reports, distaff prosecutors wore military uniforms with knee-length skirts.

Is the Attash in your book the same guy whose attorney feels she must cover her entire body? I asked Rodriguez. Yes, he answered. “These people are pretty hypocritical; one thing is their religious beliefs, the other thing is what they do.”

I’m sure a number of FA readers will disagree with me here, but al Qaeda theology is not the same religion as the Islam practiced by 1.5 billion. And a number of al Qaeda fighters aren’t even particularly pious, let alone religiously observant, except when it serves their agenda and interest to be so. The allure of violent jihad attracts a certain kind of personality; and some of those involved in the business of jihadism merely are in it for the adventurism of violence and not religion. Islam is and also isn’t the problem.

While Bormann may try to shame female prosecutors to take the veil, Rodriguez found that KSM preferred dealing with female CIA officers who wore work attire. At the end of one debriefing, Rodriguez writes, KSM called a female officer back and said, “There’s something else you should know.” KSM then described how “he had personally decapitated Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002.” KSM was not remorseful.

At the end of the chapter on KSM in Rodriguez’s book, is this account (the most detailed one I’ve read) of where he threatens to murder one of his CIA debriefers:

One of our senior CTC officers spent some time at the black site and established what seemed to have been a good relationship with KSM, getting some very valuable information from him. His contact with KSM came long after the “difficult period” (as the detainees called it) when EITs were employed. When it was time for this officer to return to headquarters, he dropped by KSM’s cell to say good-bye. Mohammed surprised him by saying: “Have a safe trip.” Sensing that what he had just said might be taken as a sign of humanity, KSM quickly added: “It is not that I wish you well. But if I ever get out of here, I want to personally be the one to kill you.”

-
“Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives, by Jose Rodriguez with Bill Harlow, Pg 96-97

Jose Rodriguez writes a piece today for CNN, covering the media carnival around the court circus:

While the antics of these al Qaeda terrorists were certainly colorful, I would like to take a moment to focus on the performance of an entirely different group, the journalists who covered the proceedings.

While most reporters have been careful to write that those who were arraigned are “alleged” to have committed terrorism (an allegation Mohammed has previously gleefully accepted), they are less careful when discussing the treatment these top terrorists received at the hands of the CIA.

~~~

The biggest myth is that the detainees were “tortured.” Some of the stories coming out of Gitmo this past weekend simply state that as a fact. There is no “allegedly” attached to the allegation in these stories. About 30 out of the 100 or so detainees that the CIA held were subjected to some harsh treatment.

But the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice assured us in writing that the treatment was specifically not torture.

From Hard Measures, pg 63:

Any interrogation program we developed had to be effective and legal. Assuring ourselves of the latter proved time-consuming. But as critically important as we felt it to be to get information that might help us thwart impending attacks, I insisted that we take no action unless and until we were assured, in writing, by the seniormost legal authorities, that we were not crossing legal red lines. Some of my most senior leaders in CTC argued that we couldn’t afford to wait for approval from policymakers. They felt the pressure of a possible second wave of attacks that might happen at any moment and knew that Abu Zubaydah had in his head information that could help us thwart them. But I said, no, we will not go ahead until we know we have the backing of our political leaders and a binding legal opinion from the Department of Justice.

And of course some political leaders, like they did in regards to previous statements they made on the question of Iraq and WMD including voting on AUMF, wish to rewrite history and absolve their hands, abandoning the soldiers out on the battlefield to take the heat and blame.

Rodriguez continues…

Many of the techniques were essentially bluffs — designed to get the attention of a detainee and perhaps scare him — but to cause no physical harm.

Some of the stories this weekend talked of “years” of abusive treatment these detainees endured. In fact, the enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) that CIA used were applied at most for only 30 days. On average, it was much less.

Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee subjected to EITs, received them for less than three weeks. Mohammed’s period of harsh — but legal and necessary — treatment was even less.

The public impression, aided and abetted by the media, is that the practice of waterboarding was rampant.

In fact, only three detainees: Mohammed, Zubaydah and one other were ever waterboarded, the last one more than nine years ago. Many of the stories this weekend repeated the assertion that Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. But 183 is a count of the number of pours of water from a plastic water bottle. Mohammed told the International Committee of the Red Cross in 2007 that he had been waterboarded five times.

If his story has now changed, it is only to match the media narrative.

In the end, it wasn’t even waterboarding that did him in. It was sleep deprivation.

(Senator Bill Nelson, btw, asked to be waterboarded and was denied).

Ali Soufan’s Black Banners is a very good read, with detailed accounts of his experience in investigating the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and his interrogation of HVDs, including Abu Zubaydah. He writes a very persuasive argument, speaking from a position of authority and not just from expertise in his field (I mention this because I’ve seen interrogators and former SERE instructors criticize the CIA program, only to succeed in revealing their ignorance of the actual program in so doing).

When I picked up Rodriguez’ book on the day of release (April 30th), upon first glance it seemed less impressive than Soufan’s. The latter is in smaller print and lots of pages; the former had larger printing and less pages (neither has any appendices, notes, or index at the end; although Black Banners does list some sources cited). My fear became that it might be a partisan read rather than a serious work of contribution to the ongoing debate. But once I delved in, I was reassured by the contents. Mr. Rodriguez writes very convincing arguments that challenges the narrative painted by Soufan’s account. What fascinates me is trying to reconcile both accounts, because I don’t think either person is intentionally lying or deceiving; in some cases, it’s a matter of differing perspectives; in others, it will require some sleuthing on the part of the reader to reconcile dates, fill in missing pieces, and determine for himself where the truth lies (*snicker*…see what I did? “Truth” and “lies”, side x side?…okay, nevermind).

There are a number of details in Rodriguez’ book regarding the capture and interrogation of AZ and KSM, as well as the CIA program that I’ve not seen revealed anywhere else. It definitely is a book that enriches the debate.

What is great about this book and Thiessen’s is that they directly challenge the narrative woven by the FBI and Soufan. And they extract the hysteria, hyperbole, and distorted mystique that has surrounded the nature and purpose of the EIT program and how it was implemented briefly upon 30 of the 100 HVTs who made it into the CIA program.

I believe that the mention of torture at the arraignment hearings is for the most part a ploy on the part of the HVDs about to be put on trial.

On a lighter note…

NO! It can’t be! President Barack Hussein Obama playing politics with Osama bin Laden’s death?

At the ABC News web site, “The Note,” Michael Falcone wrote, “But four years ago this April, the Obama campaign criticized Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for using Osama bin Laden in a political ad.” “The Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, accused the Clinton team of playing ‘the politics of fear’ just like George W. Bush.” Can anyone say, “Hypocrisy?”

All you Obama Kool-Aid drinkers will want to watch this video that features the very objective Bill Clinton who turned down numerous chances to capture or kill bin Laden that were handed to him. Isn’t it ironic that the Obama campaign staff chose Clinton for this video? That is the same Clinton who, when he appeared on “Fox News Sunday” September 24, 2006, got into a rather animated discussion with host Chris Wallace. And that is the same Clinton that was defended by “Netroots,” a liberal web site that declared the ABC docudrama “The Path To 9/11″ as “a piece of fiction,” and that ABC’s airing it represents “gross negligence” since it didn’t cast its hero, Bill Clinton, in a very favorable light. There was, however, one small problem. None of the “Netroots” writers had seen the docudrama before writing about it. Further, Markos Moulitsas at “The Daily Kos,” posted an article entitled “ABC’s Work of Fiction” In it he wrote, “ABC’s piece of fiction, written by Rush Limbaugh’s personal friend and marketed heavily in wingnut circles, bills itself as ‘objective’ and a ‘docudrama’.”

Kenneth P. Vogel of “Politico,” wrote of Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs’ appearance on NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday, April 29. 2012. Gibbs said, “Look, just a few years ago, President Obama – then a candidate – said in a speech that if we had actionable intelligence of a high-value target in Pakistan, we’d go in and get that high value target. Mitt Romney said that was foolish. He wouldn’t do such a thing. That he wouldn’t move heaven and earth to get Osama bin Laden.”

But… as Morgen Richmond at “Hot Air” writes, “The full context of Romney’s remarks demonstrate that he was actually calling for a more strategic and expansive approach in the fight against Al Qaeda and Islamic extremism.”

Obama and Democrats focus on one statement Romney made, taken out of context. But they forget (or don’t want to remember) what Romney said on the bin Laden subject in 2007. As SNL’s “Church Lady” used to say, “Isn’t that convenient.” This video provides a much more complete picture of Romney’s view of pursuing high value targets.

Further, Guy Benson wrote at “Townhall,” “…to blatantly harp on this point in an election season is decidedly unseemly; to suggest that your political opponent wouldn’t have made the exact same call borders on slander, especially if you dredge up an out-of-context quote to ‘prove’ the point.” Benson provides the full conversation between Liz Sidoti and Mitt Romney. Read it – you liberals may learn something. Benson continues, “In other words, Romney was all for nailing OBL, but he also knew that the effectiveness of an entire war effort can’t be graded on one narrow rubric. That’s common sense. The Obama campaign is trying to turn the sentiment above into ‘Mitt didn’t care about bin Laden and would’ve let him skate’.”

And now this from Senator John McCain (R-AZ): “Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11th and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad. This is the same President who once criticized Hillary Clinton for invoking bin Laden ‘to score political points.’ This is the same President who said, after bin Laden was dead, that we shouldn’t ‘spike the ball’ after the touchdown. And now Barack Obama is not only trying to score political points by invoking Osama bin Laden, he is doing a shameless end-zone dance to help himself get reelected. No one disputes that the President deserves credit for ordering the raid, but to politicize it in this way is the height of hypocrisy.”

The problem is that none of the hard-core liberals/progressives/Democrats will do any research, will view anything that might upset their world, will believe the half-truths, lies, and taken from context statements provided by Obama and his campaign staff, and, based on that “information,” vote.

But that’s just my opinion.

Cross-posted at RWNO, my personal web site.

The hub for conterterrorism operations is the CTC’s Global Response Center. At its entrance is a three-foot by three-foot sign that says, TODAY IS SEPTEMBER 12, 2001. It’s a reminder of the urgency required to combat global terrorism. Along the wall are two photos of the World Trade Center and one of the Pentagon after the attacks.

-Ronald Kessler, The Terrorist Watch, pg 188

A portrait of bin Laden burns in New Delhi on Sept. 21, 2001, after terrorism protesters set his effigy aflame. A report released in 2004 showed that not all those working with bin Laden have accorded him undivided devotion. MANDEL NGAN / AFP/GETTY IMAGES

As the one-year anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s demise, looms before us, questions are being asked:

What is the state of al-Qaeda?

Is the war on terror over?

Are we safer?

Brian Ball of Frederick covers his mouth in emotion while standing near his wife, Ashley, and son, Paddy, 8 months, near the memorial bench of a close friend at the memorial at the Pentagon. Ball's friend died while working at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Ricky Carioti / The Washington Post

When President Obama took to the airwaves to announce and confirm that “We got him”, it was a great day for America. The face and figurehead of al-Qaeda had finally been decapitated (Well…technically, a bullet through the head). It brought some level of closure for many Americans, even though Osama bin Laden and his organization has been decentralized and made impotent ever since they got their ass handed to them in Afghanistan, as well as all across the globe. Under the leadership of President Bush, with some level of continuity under President Obama, most of al-Qaeda’s original leadership and membership have been killed or captured over the last decade. We’ve warred with them in over 102 countries. Not just militarily and not just in two countries.

bin Laden is dead. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, his nephew Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Ramzi Binalshibh, Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi will be arraigned soon to face a death penalty trial.

Other notables remain at large, with bounties on their heads. The U.S. recently added a $10 million bounty for the founder of Lashkar-i-Taiba- seen as an international threat and not just a regional one.

So how is al-Qaeda today?

WaPo:

The emerging picture is of a network that is crumpled at its core, apparently incapable of an attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001, yet poised to survive its founder’s demise.

U.S. officials have debated “since bin Laden’s death what is the trajectory of this organization and when will we know that we’ve actually defeated it,” a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said.

The answer so far is split.

“The organization that brought us 9/11 is essentially gone,” said the official, among several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss U.S. intelligence assessments of al-Qaeda with reporters a year after bin Laden was killed. “But the movement . . . the ideology of the global jihad, bin Laden’s philosophy — that survives in a variety of places outside Pakistan.”

Ali Soufan:

After the United States responded to 9/11 decisively, and effectively dismantled what was then considered al-Qaeda’s “center of gravity”, the terrorist network adapted. Instead of the centralized command and control that had been its trademark, it became less “Chief Operator” than “Chief Motivator”, a move that helped spur Internet recruitment and domestic terrorism- a great problem faced today by the governments of the United States and other countries fighting terrorism.

The terror network’s focus turned to manipulating regional, local, tribal, and sectarian conflicts in order to promote its interests. It also “franchised” the al-Qaeda name and encouraged other terrorist groups in places such as North Africa, Southeast Asia, and parts of the Middle East (later, notably, Iraq) to operate under the al-Qaeda banner.

-The Black Banners, Pg 347

Even before al-Qaeda’s central leadership began relying upon Zarqawi and others not directly under their control and command to carry on the war and terror attacks when they could not, this was always about more than just a war with one terror organization and one man. Those who think we’ve been fighting against only “The Base”, have not been paying attention.

We’ve been at war with what one might call a “global jihad movement”, consisting of many Islamic terror organizations with shared interests, goals, funding, and training; sometimes the barriers that separates one group from the next can get blurred or dissolved (Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad joining al-Qaeda, for instance). This is why you often come across news stories of terrorism that mentions “___________(fill in the blank), an affiliate of al-Qaeda,….”- not necessarily al-Qaeda, per se. Bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa declaring jihad against the United States was endorsed and signed by not only bin Laden and his group, but Zawahari’s EIJ and 4 others under the umbrella moniker, World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and the Crusaders.

This is why I often refer to the al Qaeda network, and not just al Qaeda.

And this is why I think it is a mistake for people to think that just because one man- Osama bin Laden- was finally “brought to justice”, or that al-Qaeda as we knew it before no longer exists, that we are free to move on with our lives and declare the war as being over.

Keep in mind, as well, that Zubaydah, heavily involved in terror-ties with al-Qaeda plotting against the United States, was not officially a member of al-Qaeda. And the mastermind of the 9/11 plot himself, KSM, did not swear bayat to Osama bin Laden until after the plot was carried out. Yet is there any question that just because they had yet to swear an oath of loaylty to bin Laden, that they weren’t a part of the war against America?

Here’s a partial list as example (by no means exhaustive nor current), of just some of the al-Qaeda affiliates (mostly pooled from Scott’s book, Saddam’s Ties to Al Qaeda, as quick reference):

Ulema Union of Afghanistan
Armed Islamic Group
Saafi Group for Proselytism and Combat
Al-Jihad
Groupe Roubaix
Al-Gama’a al-Islamiya
Partisans Movement
Jemaah Islamiah
Bayt al-Imam
Asbat al Ansar
Hezbollah
Lebanese Partisans League
Libyan Islamic Group
Pakaistan
Al-Badar
Harakat ul Ansar/Mujahadeen
Al-Hadith
Harakat ul Jihad
Jaish Mohammed
Jamait-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Laskar e-Toiba
Islamic Jihad
Moro Islamic Liberation Front
Abu Sayyff
Al-Ittihad
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Al-Jihad Group
*Mohammed’s Army
*Fatah Revolutionary Council (FRC)
*Arab Revolutionary Brigades (ARB)
*Black September (Organization- BSO)
*Black June Organization (BJO)
*Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims (ROSM)
*Ansar Al Islam
*Ansar Al Sunni
*Fayadeen Al Saddam
*The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK)
*People’s Mujahidin of Iran (PMOI)
*National Council of Resistance (NCR)
*Muslim Iranian Student’s Society (front organization used to garner financial support)
*Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) branch/Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)/branch- Abbu Abbas faction
(Note: “*” indicates terrorist group in pre-war Iraq)

Iraqi Cpl. Ahmed Waleed Muhid displays a bin Laden target sheet at Camp Fallujah, west of Baghdad, on July 4, 2006. When al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in June 2006, bin Laden praised him as a "brave knight" for fueling Iraq's insurgency. AFP / AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Osama bin Laden may be gone along with the al-Qaeda brand as he defined it, but his #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri is the glue that still holds what’s left of the original namebrand together; and the franchise of Islamic terror itself is very much still alive in the world:

Far from being dead and buried, the terrorist organization is now riding a resurgent tide as its affiliates engage in an increasingly violent campaign of attacks across the Middle East and North Africa. And for all the admiration inspired by brave protesters in the streets from Damascus to Sanaa, the growing instability triggered by the Arab Spring has provided al Qaeda with fertile ground to expand its influence across the region.

Al Qaeda’s bloody fingerprints are increasingly evident in the Middle East. In Iraq, where the United States has withdrawn its military forces, al Qaeda operatives staged a brazen wave of bombings in January, killing at least 132 Shiite pilgrims and wounding hundreds more. The following week in Yemen, fighters from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula seized the town of Radda, while expanding al Qaeda’s control in several southern provinces. “Al Qaeda has raised its flag over the citadel,” a resident told Reuters.

Beyond these anecdotes, several indicators suggest that al Qaeda is growing stronger. First, the size of al Qaeda’s global network has dramatically expanded since the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and Somalia’s al-Shabab have formally joined al Qaeda, and their leaders have all sworn bayat — an oath of loyalty — to bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

These al Qaeda affiliates are increasingly capable of holding territory. In Yemen, for example, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has exploited a government leadership crisis and multiple insurgencies to cement control in several provinces along the Gulf of Aden. Al Qaeda’s affiliates in Somalia and Iraq also appear to be maintaining a foothold where there are weak governments, with al-Shabab in Kismayo and southern parts of Somalia, and al Qaeda in Iraq in Baghdad, Diyala, and Salah ad Din provinces, among others.

The number of attacks by al Qaeda and its affiliates is also on the rise, even since bin Laden’s death. Al Qaeda in Iraq, for instance, has conducted more than 200 attacks and killed more than a thousand Iraqis since the bin Laden raid, a jump from the previous year. And despite the group’s violent legacy, popular support for al Qaeda remains fairly high in countries such as Nigeria and Egypt, though it has steadily declined in others. If this is what the brink of defeat looks like, I’d hate to see success.

Also read Mary Habeck series of posts.

I believe al-Qaeda lost power and prestige after their defeat in Afghanistan. The manner in which Abu Ghraib got reported became a “recruitment bonanza” for the jihadi movement, breathing new life into al-Qaeda…until they were exposed as the greatest killers of Muslims, this side of Mecca.

And now, in a post-Bush era of increased Predator drone attacks and military excursions that have fueled anti-Americanism in Pakistan (along with high-profile incidents in Afghanistan), apparently al-Qaeda’s enjoying a resurgence of popularity:

A man shows support for bin Laden at a rally in Lahore, Pakistan, on July 25, 1999. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has pressured Pakistan to cooperate in its war on terror, while some Islamic groups have protested the government's U.S. alliance. SAEED KHAN / AFP

In May 2011, shortly after bin Laden’s death, the Pew Global Attitudes Project released an opinion survey with the pithy headline: “Osama bin Laden Largely Discredited Among Muslim Publics in Recent Years.” Its findings have been widely trumpeted by those seeking to highlight the organization’s decreasing popularity in Muslim countries. And indeed, the poll found that support for al Qaeda, and for bin Laden himself, has been steadily declining among Muslims in Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Turkey, and a handful of other countries.

Yet a closer look at the data reveals that al Qaeda’s support has not fallen as far as the headlines would have you believe. According to the same Pew poll, roughly one-quarter of the Muslim population in the Palestinian territories, Indonesia, and Egypt still supports al Qaeda — some 73 million people. Even if that estimate is high, this seems a significant foothold for the organization, because al Qaeda doesn’t appear to require significant levels of public support to accomplish its bloody work. Indicators of al Qaeda’s support elsewhere are even more disturbing. Its popularity among Nigerian Muslims was just under 50 percent — a striking finding for a country that has witnessed the growth of Boko Haram.

Before we write al Qaeda’s epitaph, it would be wise to understand what the available facts tell us — and what they don’t. After all, al Qaeda’s popularity is frequently less important than that of insurgent groups to which it is attached. That is exactly al Qaeda’s objective: to establish a symbiotic relationship with local groups that have more support and legitimacy. In Afghanistan, for example, a Taliban overthrow of President Hamid Karzai’s government would be an enormous victory for al Qaeda, which would almost certainly re-establish a sanctuary in the country.

Seth G. Jones goes on to point out that the Arab Spring has not been a negative for al-Qaeda.

Zawahiri’s original goals were regional- the overthrow of the Egyptian government. The Arab Spring accomplished what Zawahiri and his EIJ could not. Part of the anger that fuels the jihadi movement in various countries is the belief that their misery is due to corrupt, dictatorial governments that are too secular; their belief is that becoming more Islamic would solve the dysfunctions of their countries. Islamists and radical fundamentalists are seeing the Arab Spring as an opportunity.

More from Greg Miller’s WaPo piece:

Under Zawahiri, a bespectacled physician from Egypt, al-Qaeda has made subtle strategic shifts. He is seen as less preoccupied than bin Laden with mounting large-scale attacks against the United States, instead emphasizing regional struggles at a time when that message is more likely to resonate with Muslims in the Middle East.

By necessity, Zawahiri has narrowed al-Qaeda’s short-term ambitions. Unable to point to a sequel to the Sept. 11 attacks, Zawahiri has sought to find victories in the course of world events.

In his taped messages, Zawahiri has depicted the pending U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, budget cuts for the Defense Department and even the Arab Spring as evidence of America’s “shrinking and retreat.”

“He’s trying to jump on the bandwagon,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and terrorism expert at the Brookings Institution. Zawahiri has “gotten the endorsements of the entire global al-Qaeda empire,” Riedel said, but he presides over a core that has been “staggered and set back.”

As a result, U.S. counterterrorism officials are increasingly focused on a roster of regional affiliates. “Those groups, in total, will surpass the core al-Qaeda remaining in Pakistan,” Cardillo said.

Several have showed renewed strength over the past year.

The network’s once-dormant franchise in Iraq has carried out a string of deadly attacks across the country. It has also reversed smuggling routes that used to bring fighters and weapons in through Syria but are now being used to export violence to the uprising against that country’s president, Bashar al-Assad.

In North Africa, al-Qaeda’s franchise has made millions of dollars through kidnappings and other criminal enterprises, U.S. officials said, and is now using the money to stock up on weapons that have flowed out of Libya after dictator Moammar Gaddafi was overthrown.

Still, it is al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen that “we’re most worried about, the affiliate we spend the most time on,” said the senior U.S. counterterrorism official. “They’re operating in the midst of essentially an insurgency, a multi-polar struggle for the control of Yemen. And that allows them the opportunity to recruit, to fundraise, to plot.”

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, as the Yemen-based group is known, has fused itself with a regional insurgency that has seized large portions of the country’s southern provinces over the past year.

The United States has responded by escalating a covert campaign of airstrikes by the CIA and the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command. Earlier this month, Obama gave the agency and JSOC expanded authority to conduct strikes against targets that appear to be part of AQAP, even if the identities of those who could be killed is unknown.

AQAP is tied to the most recent major attacks on U.S. targets, including the mailing of parcels packed with explosives to addresses in Chicago in 2010, as well as the failed attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day in 2009.

AQAP has devoted more of its recent energies to regional ambitions — a shift that U.S. counterterrorism officials attribute to opportunism as well as bin Laden’s death.

“It doesn’t mean they’ve abandoned their global jihadist intentions,” the U.S. counterterrorism official said. “But they are more focused on their local situation partly so they can free up time and space, so that in the future they can take up the mantle again of the global jihad.”

May 2, 2011 - New York Herman Maisonave, of Queens, holds up a sign as he joins those gathered by Ground Zero in New York as they react to the news of Osama bin Laden's death. Tina Fineberg / AP

Dates and anniversaries seem to be important to al-Qaeda. But

“At this time, we have no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the anniversary of bin Laden’s death,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters.

“However, we assess that [al Qaeda]‘s affiliates and allies remain intent on conducting attacks in the homeland, possibly to avenge the death of bin Laden, but not necessarily tied to the anniversary,”

Republicans are criticizing President Obama of politicizing the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death, just as Democrats had done over President Bush and 9/11.

If we transition back to a Republican presidency, will the GWoT/OCO look much different? Not by much, I think. When it comes to national security, I believe there is a certain level of “continuity of government”, regardless of the “R” or the “D” in front of the “PotUS”. And where President Obama has gotten things right is where he’s perpetuated Bush-era policies in prosecuting the war against exported Islamic terror (In spite of what Senator and presidential candidate Obama campaigned upon).

The 2012 presidential Republican nominee should tread carefully that he doesn’t fall into the same trap as the ’08 Democratic candidate did. Matthew Waxman:

“The perception that the president is constrained by law is vital to the success of counterterrorism policies in courts and cooperation on counterterrorism issues with allies.” Along similar lines I’d like to emphasize a few points.

First, I agree with Jack’s caution that Romney should not press his perceived advantages too far, and I’d add another reason. If Romney wins, he’s going to find his operational flexibility already heavily constrained by a combination of politics, legal restrictions (including Guantanamo legislation passed by Congress during the Obama administration), diplomatic necessities, and other factors. He should be careful not to unnecessarily and prematurely paint himself into corners on how to handle, for example, captured al Qaida figures. As President Obama has learned, some pragmatic flexibility to choose among legal avenues is necessary to deal with the complexities of these cases. In particular, a Romney administration will also find (as the Bush Administration showed and many Obama critics from the right have forgotten) how valuable to an aggressive counterterrorism strategy the option of civilian criminal prosecutions can be in certain cases. John Bellinger and I emphasized these points in our critique of the most recent National Defense Authorization Act.

Second, Jack correctly implies that regardless of who wins the presidency in 2012, the counterterrorism policies and practices in the next term will look a lot like they do now. A second-term Obama administration will continue its approach of flexible pragmatism, having learned that operational and political constraints rule out radical reforms, but having shown that acknowledging and articulating legal limits strengthens counter-terrorism programs by making them less vulnerable to legal and political challenges and reducing friction with our allies.

Even if it wants to, a Republican administration will find it difficult to roll back Obama Administration reforms in the other direction, though, especially those that reflect legal lines drawn by the Justice Department in recent years. For example, as Jack notes, candidate Romney might want to draw distinctions from Obama by refusing to take waterboarding off the table. But even supposing there were operational intelligence advantage to doing so, at this point a President Romney would find it hard to put it back on the table, in the sense of actually getting the CIA or another agency to consider doing it.

Waterboarding (practiced on only 3 HVDs and ended not by President Obama but suspended under President Bush) is off the table, regardless of who wins presidential re-election or election.

So, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “wind down”…as we celebrate the one-year anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death, as al-Qaeda proper ceases to exist as it once had…is the war on terror over? Has the global jihad movement lost its steam? Is it time to revert back to a law enforcement approach in dealing with international Islamic terrorism? After all, invading countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and incursions into Pakistan, only seem to fuel anti-Americanism and recruitment for violent jihad.

Are we safer today? Have those who wish to war upon us ceased in their efforts?

It’s still a dangerous world. It’s still a new kind of war. We must maintain vigilance.

As far as I’m concerned….it’s still September 12, 2001.

May 2, 2011 - Shanksville, Pa. At the temporary Flight 93 memorial site near Shanksville, Pa., Barbara Ray of Stoney Creek, Pa., looks out over the field where the plane crashed on Sept. 11, 2001. She and her husband made this sign this morning and invited visitors to sign it. Michael S. Williamson / The Washington Post

Anwar al-Awlaki, a militant cleric who was an American citizen, was killed in Yemen.

While I don’t disagree with the Administration over this policy, I find the whole situation ironic. It was just a few years ago liberals were crying and protesting all over the fact that the United States waterboarded a few high level terrorists.

But I guess it’s ok to just a put a bullet in their head rather than making them a widdle bit scared with water eh?

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asserted on Monday that it is lawful for the government to kill American citizens if officials deem them to be operational leaders of Al Qaeda who are planning attacks on the United States and if capturing them alive is not feasible.

“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,” Mr. Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University’s law school. “In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”

…While Mr. Holder is not the first administration official to address the targeted killing of citizens — the Pentagon’s general counsel, Jeh Johnson, did so last month at Yale Law School, for example — it was notable for the nation’s top law enforcement official to declare that it is constitutional for the government to kill citizens without any judicial review under certain circumstances. Mr. Holder’s remarks about the targeted killing of United States citizens were a centerpiece of a speech describing legal principles behind the Obama administration’s counterterrorism policies.

“Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces,” Mr. Holder said. “This is simply not accurate. ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Like I noted, I agree with the Administration.

But the hypocrisy is just mind boggling. If Bush has been suggesting these things heads would be exploding across both coasts.

Oh, one more note from the above article:

Still, the speech contained no footnotes or specific legal citations, and it fell far short of the level of detail contained in the Office of Legal Counsel memo — or in an account of its contents published in October by The New York Times based on descriptions by people who had read it.

Hmmmm, Obama and pals were all fired up to release some earlier memo’s…..oh right, that’s because they were written under Bushitler’s watch.

Rush Limbaugh blasts Ron Paul as the Conservative Killer:

…the majority of people that voted him were not Republican. And in another poll, the percentage of Ron Paul voters who say they will vote for the Republican nominee is… like 80% of Tea Party voters in New Hampshire said no matter who the Republican nominee is they’re voting for it. The Ron Paul number is 40%. Now, as I say, I’ve gotta double confirm. It’s ostensibly Rasmussen and we’re double-checking this, but what I know so far, or what I’ve been told is that Ron Paul supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they’d vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on, and most of Huntsman’s voters and most of Paul’s voters were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, also according to this polling data.

…Here we go. It’s the exit polling data from Fox, and it is on political matters, “Do you consider yourself very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative?” You go to Ron Paul, 33% of his voters, according to exit polls, were somewhat liberal; 24% were moderate; 0 were very liberal. So 57% of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives. And that’s one of the things that I wanted to see because with this big push — what is happening here, the final push now that’s on to get Romney the nomination, Newt and Perry, with their attacks, have made it impossible to defend them. I hate to tell you, folks, but you just can’t put your name to what they’re out there saying, vulture capitalism and so forth.

Romney, however, wants Ron Paul to stay in. Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul. They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt. They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else. So the powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents. Ron Paul is a conservative killer. Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there, encouraging him to stay in there.

So 40% of Paul voters said they would go on to support the eventual Republican nominee. 40%!

Where’s the other 60% going to go? Apparently Obama.

While 80% of the tea-party voters will support WHOEVER the Republican nominee is.

That should tell us a whole lot about Ron Paul and his supporters. They cannot be counted on to push the Republicans to victory in 2012. The only thing Ron Paul can guarantee is to kill off Santorum and Newt’s chances.

With that I’ll segue into the John Gibson show yesterday in which Gibson asked Ron Paul supporters to call in and give him reasons why he is so awesome: (its 15 minutes well spent?)

And hey, guess who else loves themselves some Ron Paul?

The Iranian regime’s English language propaganda channel, PressTV, has discovered a new American idol: presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul.

PressTV has stepped up its coverage of Paul’s campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in recent weeks, featuring his anti-Israel rants, his claim that sanctions against Iran are “acts of war,” his approval of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and much more.

The Iranian government channel portrays Ron Paul as an American hero, and brings on conspiracy theorists masquerading as political “analysts” to laud him for “challenging the American establishment” and the “corporate neo-conservative Zionist consensus,” that cabal of Jews, banksters, and Reagan Democrats who in Tehran’s eyes (and in the eyes of these Ron Paul supporters) run the world.

It’s a script taken almost word-for-word from the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

So go ahead Paulbots….vote for Ron Paul, or Obama when RP doesn’t get the nomination but I will never pull the lever for this nut.

Ole’ Mitt is giving John Kerry a run for his money for the Flip-Flopper crown:

On an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” a few days ago, Mitt Romney was asked whether, given what we know today, the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. Romney wouldn’t say.

“Oh boy, that’s a big question,” Romney answered. “And going back and trying to say, given what we know now, what would we have done? Would we have invaded or not? At the time, we didn’t have the knowledge that we have now.” Romney mentioned intelligence before the war suggesting that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. After the war, U.S. and international inspection teams did not find those weapons, which had been the basis for much of the Bush administration’s case for invading Iraq. Still, Romney told Fox’s Chris Wallace that the invasion was “appropriate at the time” because the U.S. acted “in light of that belief” — that is, in intelligence that turned out to be faulty.

Three days later?

This time, his answer was not only different but definitive: No, the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq had officials known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.

“Well, if we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction — if somehow we had been given that information, why, obviously we would not have gone in,” Romney said.

“You don’t think we would have gone in?” asked MSNBC’s Chuck Todd.

“Well, of course not,” Romney answered. “The president went in based upon intelligence that they had weapons of mass destruction. Had he known that that was not the case, the U.N. would not have put forward resolutions authorizing this type of action. The president would not have been pursuing that course.”

My beef isn’t just his flip-flopping, it’s his focus on WMD’s and whether or not the UN would of authorized force without them. WMD’s were NOT the only reason we went in.

We knew Saddam had ties to terror groups.

we know from Clinton Administration claims, from captured documents, from pre-war and post-war intelligence that Saddam’s intelligence agencies had relationships with various groups in the Al Queda terrorist network of groups. We know from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden that the two had reached an agreement to get WMD into the hands of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development.

We also know from 1990-2003 Saddam’s government considered itself at war with the United States and from 1992-today Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups has been at war with the United States.

A few great posts to read would be the debate between Scott, our Author, and a commenter. Both parts here and here.

Not only did he have the ties to terrorist groups but he had the means to get WMD’s into their hands. This would be unthinkable after 9/11, and after the previous 13 years in which he flipped the world off that was a chance no one could take.

Oh, but there were other reasons:

• The Cease Fire Agreement, broken many times by Iraq
• They thwarted inspections of their WMD facilities as mandated by the Cease Fire
• Iraq persisted in violating other resolutions by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its people
• The fact that Iraq had proven they were willing to use WMD from prior history.
• The fact that Iraq demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces
• The fact that after 9/11 the threat posed by any terrorist group acquiring WMD would be grave

And many more.

The man was evil and committed acts which ARE acts of war, ie firing on US fighter jets, attempted assassination of political leaders…you add that onto his history of aggression against its neighbors and his relationships with various terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, and you have a great reason to invade.

Not just WMD.

The fact that at the time everyone and their mother believed he had WMD is an added factor, but not THE factor.

Ok, off my soapbox.

Now onto some more Mitt news. It doesn’t just involve flip-floppery but full on stupidity. Here he is claiming that the individual mandate is “conservative”

Requiring people to have health insurance is “conservative,” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.

The argument aims to improve Romney’s appeal to Republican voters concerned about the healthcare reform plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts in 2006. The Massachusetts law contains an individual mandate similar to the one in President Obama’s healthcare law, which conservatives despise.

“Personal responsibility,” Romney said, “is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government.”

Oh please. Personal responsabilitity is definitely conservative…but forcing someone to pay for everyone’s health insurance is NOT.

Well isn’t this wonderful:

Washington ready to negotiate with Mullah Omar

Right on the heels of this terrible news:

A Taliban suicide bomber rammed a van into an armored NATO bus Saturday in Kabul, killing 13 American troops and four Afghans, U.S. and Afghan officials said, in the deadliest attack on coalition forces in more than two months.

The explosion, which occurred as the convoy was passing the American University, sparked a fireball and littered the street with shrapnel. Heavy black smoke poured from burning wreckage at the site.

The armored personnel carrier, known as a Rhino was sandwiched between of a convoy of mine-resistant military vehicles traveling on a four-lane highway frequently used by NATO forces in a southwestern section of the city.

NATO said 13 service members were killed, but a U.S. official confirmed they were all Americans. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

We have been at war with the Taliban since 2001 after they, specifically Mullah Omar, were involved in 9/11. Either indirectly prior to the attack or in the help he gave al-Qaeda after the attack.

And now Obama wants to negotiate with him?

Wow

Washington is ready to negotiate with Taliban leader Mullah Omar and now regards his involvement as crucial to the prospects for peace in Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton has said.

Her comments been taken as a significant shift in American policy from moves to divide the Taliban-led insurgency and isolate Mullah Omar, the man who sheltered Osama bin Laden as he plotted the September 11 attacks, to an acknowledgement of his leadership.

It follows the disclosure earlier this month that American officials had met leaders of the Haqqani Network, the powerful Taliban faction blamed for some of the most devastating attacks on American and Nato forces in Afghanistan, including last month’s attack on the US embassy in Kabul in which seven were killed and 19 wounded.

Earlier this week the faction’s commander Sirajuddin Haqqani warned Washington that only the Quetta Shura, led by Mullah Omar, could negotiate a peace deal and that his fighters would not be divided from its leadership.

In an appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mrs Clinton said the United States would continue to “fight, talk and build” in Afghanistan and Pakistan to “test whether these organisations have any willingness to negotiate in good faith”.

Sickening.

It’s obvious we are not in this to win anymore, now it’s how we can get the hell out of there the fastest and if it means we negotiate with the enemy then so be it I suppose.

Of course, the 9/11 Truther movement probably has its most receptive fan base in the Middle East.

About six days ago, Iranian leader Ahmadinejad made Truther claims before the UN General Assembly:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he believes – as an engineer – the World Trade Center towers could not have been brought down by aircraft.

Interviewed after his address to the UN General Assembly sparked a walkout, he told the AP news agency some kind of planned explosion must have occurred.

But he stopped short of saying the US staged the disaster 10 years ago.

He had been widely condemned for using his UN address to brand the US killing of Osama Bin Laden a 9/11 cover-up.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Ahmadinejad has pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories. Following his speech last year to the UN General Assembly, ALLAHPUNDIT makes the point:

Today’s journey into Trutherism is new, though, I think. To be sure, he’s been pushing conspiracy theories about 9/11 (and not just 9/11) in interviews for years as a modern-day complement to his Holocaust denial, but as far as I know this is the first time he’s broached the subject from the podium at the UN.

It seems like a great number of people in the Middle East prefer to entertain the tantalizing notion that the U.S. government staged 9/11, framing innocent Muslims as an excuse to make war.

In Pakistan:

“Many Pakistanis I spoke to in the six years that I’ve been a correspondent here say they have no idea who carried out the 9/11 attacks,” she said.

In a 2008 World Public Opinion poll, 72 percent of the Pakistani respondents said they didn’t know who were behind the attacks. As many people believed Israel was behind it as al-Qaida (4 percent), and 19 percent thought the United States itself carried out the attacks.

“This is an argument that I have heard over and over again,” said Koster. “In this conspiracy theory, the U.S. staged the attacks to have a reason for invading Afghanistan.”

The conspiracy-minded think the United States wanted to enter Afghanistan to be closer to oil sources in Central Asia, closer to China to thwart its growing economy and power, or to wipe out the Muslim community, she said.

Many voicing these perspectives were well-educated Pakistanis, she added. “For instance, a wealthy English-speaking Pakistani from an area beleaguered by the Pakistani Taliban firmly believed the U.S. wanted to extinguish Muslims.”

According to the New Republic:

the unpopularity of the United States in the Arab world continues to be fueled by the belief that Islamist terrorists had nothing to do with 9/11, with many claiming the attacks were an American, Israeli, or joint American-Israeli conspiracy. In this sense, overcoming 9/11 revisionism is, perhaps, the greatest challenge facing American public diplomacy in the coming decade: So long as such conspiracy theories persist, Arabs will continue to view American policies aimed at preventing “another 9/11” as thoroughly illegitimate since, as they see it, 9/11 is just a big American lie.

In a report on Muslim-Western relations released on July 21 of this year, the Pew Research Center asked Muslim respondents in eight countries—including Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan—whether they thought groups of Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks on the United States. In every country, less than 30 percent of respondents professed their belief for the idea, and in Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey the level of acceptance is lower today than it was in 2006. Indeed, the same revolutionary Arab Street that toppled Mubarak in Egypt also registered the highest level of denial among all the countries surveyed, with a full 75 percent of respondents recording their disbelief.

To use a badly over-abused pun, Egyptians especially are living in “da Nile”:

Pew’s poll numbers from Egypt track closely with my own experience in the country, where I lived and conducted doctoral research during parts of its tumultuous spring. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I found that 9/ll revisionism was particularly prominent among Islamists, for whom rewriting history is necessary for deflecting the accusation that their ideology motivates mass murder. “There is no Al Qaeda,” former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mehdi Akef told me in complete seriousness. “It’s an American expression. It’s just an ideology, Al Qaeda. This ideology comes from America and their coalitions.” In Akef’s inversion of reality, 9/11 constituted an American attack on the Middle East, followed by an Islamist policy of self-defense. “When they fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, Al Qaeda thinks it’s a jihad because the fight is against occupation,” he said. “And it is jihad to fight occupation. And when Americans kill civilians everywhere, it’s a big crime against humanity.”

Younger generations of Muslim Brothers echo Akef’s distortions without fail. “America did [9/11] for some business interests,” Alexandria Brotherhood leader Ali Abdelfattah said to me. Abdel Monem Abouel Fetouh, a former Brotherhood leader whom The New York Times touts as a “liberal Islamist,” agrees: “I don’t believe it was jihadists—it was too big an operation,” he told me. “This was done by a country, not individuals. It’s not a conspiracy theory—it’s just logical. They didn’t bring crimes before the U.S. justice system until now. Why? Because it’s part of the conspiracy.” Even Islam Lotfy, who recently left the Brotherhood to establish his own political party and works as a contractor for USAID in Egypt, finds American complicity in 9/11 plausible. “I can’t imagine someone flying for twenty minutes and nobody realizes it, and then another plane goes and crashes and then another in Pennsylvania,” he said. Sobhi Saleh, a former parliamentarian who is considered among the Brotherhood’s top legal thinkers, had a slightly different theory. “The Jews and the Zionist lobby [did it],” he said, referencing a book that a Lebanese Christian cleric gave him. “And this study is well known in America and it’s on the Internet. … It was a scientific research.”

Yet Islamists were hardly the only group I encountered in Egyptian society that denied Al Qaeda’s complicity in 9/11. Revolutionary socialists, who comprise an important segment of the youth activists that catalyzed the January anti-Mubarak revolt, see the machinations of global domination at work. “Personally, I think the imperial interests needed something like this,” Mustafa Shawqi, a leader in the Coalition of Revolutionary Youth, told me. “Gas tycoons—blocking any attempt for democratic change in the Arab world and serving the security of Israel.” And a number of self-proclaimed liberals sounded awfully like the Islamists when asked who was responsible for 9/11. “The CIA knows who did it. I don’t know,” said liberal Wafd party youth activist Mohamed Fouad. “It will remain a question mark. Al Qaeda is part of the theories, but it was organized with others. And let’s not forget that Al Qaeda is made and supported by the Americans.

Eric Trager concludes his piece by stating how difficult it will be to curb anti-American sentiment and resentment in the war on terror so long as Arab 9/11 conspiracy theories are the prevalent beliefs being spun and propagandized. One major problem of course, is the refusal on the part of Muslims to take ownership and responsibility that violent brethren of their religion were indeed responsible for “waking the sleeping/paper tiger” from its slumber. It is far easier to scapegoat the dysfunctions of their society upon the Jews or the U.S. Living in denial. And of course, when Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda claimed the charges of responsibility were true, that they brought the Towers down, some Arabs secretly (and openly) showed anything from admiration, sympathy, or support for their romanticized version of “Robin Hood” to claims that Osama must be an agent working for the CIA. No amount of evidence to the contrary will ever be enough to convince those who want to believe in conspiracies rather than face the real causes for their miserable states.

When Ahmadinejad suggested that 9/11 wasn’t caused by al Qaeda but by the U.S. government, who else other than We the People of the United States took offense? Why, al Qaeda in Yemen, no less, in the 7th issue of Inspire Magazine for Jihadis:

“The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government. So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?” opinion writer Abu Suhail asks.

Last week, Ahmadinejad appeared before the United Nations General Assembly and blasted the U.S. for disposing of al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden.

“Last year, when the need to form a fact-finding team to undertake a thorough investigation concerning the hidden elements involved in September 11 incident was brought up; an idea also endorsed by all independent governments and nations as well as by the majority in the United States, my country and myself came under pressure and threat by the government of the United States,” Ahmadinejad said, referring to the United States.

“Instead of assigning a fact-finding team, they killed the main perpetrator and threw his body into the sea. Would it not have been reasonable to bring to justice and openly bring to trial the main perpetrator of the incident in order to identify the elements behind the safe space provided for the invading aircraft to attack the twin world trade towers?”

Several diplomatic delegations walked out of Ahmadinejad’s speech.

“If Iran was genuine in its animosity towards the U.S., it would be pleased to see another
entity striking a blow at the Great Satan but that’s not the case. For Iran, anti-Americanism is merely a game of politics,” reads Inspire’s article. “Iran and the Shi’a in general do not want to give al Qaeda credit for the greatest and biggest operation ever committed against America because this would expose their lip-service jihad against the Great Satan.”

ALLAHPUNDIT:

“For them, al Qaeda was a competitor for the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised Muslims around the world,” the article says. “Al Qaeda… succeeded in what Iran couldn’t. Therefore it was necessary for the Iranians to discredit 9/11 and what better way to do so? Conspiracy theories.”

That’s super, but AQ’s relationship with Iran is a lot more complicated than their propaganda would have you believe. I wonder if the tool who wrote that article realizes that and is simply pushing out standard anti-Shiite Wahhabist yammering or if he’s so low on the totem pole that he actually doesn’t know about the collusion at the top.

Alec Rawls, who has been working with Tom Burnett Sr. to stop the Crescent of Embrace memorial to Flight 93, explains the circumstances (related by Mr. Burnett in 2008, but not published until now).

Mr. Burnett had been telling his fellow design competition jurors that the crescent is a well known Islamic symbol. In addition to the giant central crescent (now called a broken circle) Tom also objected to the minaret-like Tower of Voices. “I made a point at that meeting,” says Mr. Burnett, “to tell people that we have an Islamist design here that can’t go forward, please, stay with me.”

One of the left-wing design professionals on the jury, Tom Sokolowski (then director of Pittsburg’s Andy Warhol Museum) thought that objecting to the crescent shape, just because it happens to be used by Muslims, was anti-Muslim bigotry. In a rude attempt to shut down criticism, Sokolowski actually called Mr. Burnett “asinine” for objecting to the huge Islamic-shaped Crescent. (Sokolowski would later repeat this performance to the press, calling a local preacher “asinine,” “small minded,” “bigoted,” “repellant,” and “disgusting” for protesting the Crescent design.)

It was in this atmosphere, charged with universal awareness amongst the jurors that the giant crescent was indeed a well-known Islamic symbol shape, but also charged with uncertainty as to whether people would be allowed to mention this fact, that another family member, Sandra Felt, started to explain what she liked about the Crescent design. She liked the “embracing” nature of it, says Mr. Burnett. She liked the way it “reached out…”

At which point another family member “lost it” (Mr. Burnett’s description), screaming in agony: “I don’t want to reach out to those people! THEY MURDERED MY DAUGHTER!”

The Park Service claims it “lost” the minutes

This extreme level of conflict on the jury over perceived Islamic symbolism should have come out years ago. The jury included a designated, non-voting, minutes taker. This was not supposed to be a private deliberation. These were volunteer citizens, doing the people’s business, and the jury minutes were supposed to be made available to the public.

The Memorial Project and the Park Service claim that the minutes were “lost.” No doubt, but that doesn’t mean the loss was accidental, and defenders of the Crescent design had good reason to make the minutes go away. Any faithful record would have been explosive, revealing these fierce objections from multiple Flight 93 family members to the blatant Islamic symbolism in the Crescent design.

The ballot wasn’t supposed to be secret either, but the Park Service refuses to account for what they claim was a 9 to 6 tally in favor of the Crescent design. What does 9 to 6 even mean on what was a ranked vote amongst three designs? Did every ballot that did not rank the Crescent last get counted as a vote in favor?

The whole thing is fishy, and there is one most obvious reason why the defenders of the Crescent might want to keep the vote details hidden. The seven family members on the jury were outnumbered by eight academics and design professionals. Thus all six of the votes against the Crescent could have come from the kin, with only Sandra Felt voting for it. This is more than just possible. It is likely.

Another mother of the murdered said only that she agreed with Mr. Burnett, and he thought that the other two men amongst the family members (Gerald Bingham and Ed Root) were on his side as well, though both have since spoken out against his ongoing effort to rescind the chosen design. Bingham and Root are angry at the anguish that the families are still being put through over the memorial design, but could such men have voted for the Crescent in the first place, in the face of that mother’s anguished cry?

A vicious left-wing ideologue like Sokolowski, yes, but it seems almost inconceivable that family members could vote for a design that other family members saw as a tribute to the terrorists, or at the very least, as reaching out to Islam. Since Bingham and Root are willing to speak out, can they please tell us whether they voted for the Crescent? If they didn’t, then the vote amongst the family members was at least 5 to 2 against.

In support of Powerline’s John Hinderaker

The immediate impetus for making these revelations public now is to support John Hinderaker’s 10th anniversary 9/11 post:

You may remember that there was considerable controversy when the design for the Flight 93 memorial was unveiled. It was called “Crescent of Embrace.” The crescent is, of course, the central symbol of Islam, and the design apparently was intended to symbolize some sort of rapprochement with that religion. The winning design was chosen by a jury, and some members of the jury, including Thomas Burnett, whose son was one of the heroes who brought down the airplane, vigorously opposed it. As I understand it, no one on the jury questioned the Muslim reference inherent in the crescent, but a majority believed that it would somehow be “healing” for the memorial to be, in part at least, a sort of tribute to Islam.

That was John’s response to Tom Sr.’s revelations, and his statement is fully supportable, but for people to know why, the supporting information has to be available to everyone. Now it is.

Given the conflict between Mr. Burnett and Tom Sokolowski, there could not have been any doubt in any juror’s mind that the Crescent was an Islamic symbol shape. Indeed, the jury made a specific request, not honored by the Park Service or by architect Paul Murdoch, that:

The crescent should be referred to as ‘the circle or arc,’ or other words that are not tied to specific religious iconography.

The only question was whether the use of this Islamic symbol shape should be seen as bad, and for a majority to favor the crescent design, a majority just have decided that it wasn’t bad, even in the face of family members who found it horrific.

Maybe these left-wing design professionals actually wanted to torture the families, but the generous interpretation is the one John gives: that they saw the Crescent design as symbolizing “some sort of rapprochement” with Islam. Certainly that seems to have been Sandra Felt’s idea, and at least one family member not on the jury thought it obvious that this must have been the intent of everyone who voted for the Crescent design. Mark Bingham’s mother, Alice Hoglan, just wished that the outreach to Islam had been made explicit:

The Flight 93 Memorial selection committee has admitted to misgivings about the word ‘crescent.’ I almost wish that instead they could claim they deliberately chose the crescent design as a gesture of peace and unity with the Islamic world. If they were to make that claim, I would not object. I would welcome such a compassionate gesture.

Unfortunately, regardless of the intentions of the jurors, architect Paul Murdoch did not have a compassionate gesture in mind.

A terrorist memorial mosque

Mr. Hinderaker’s anniversary post does not investigate whether the giant crescent actually does point to Mecca (allowing it to serve as an Islamic mihrab), or whether the Tower of Voices really is a year-round-accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial. Perfectly understandable, as these claims take some work to check and John had only just learned that the memorial controversy is still aboil, after thinking that it had been resolved in 2005.

But he does provide links to the evidence, and notes that some of it is accessible just by looking. Like why in the world does the Tower of Voices have an Islamic-shaped crescent on top?

The minaret-like Tower of Voices is formed in the shape of a crescent and is cut at an angle at the top so that its crescent arms reach up to the sky, as seen on mosque minarets across most of the Islamic world.

Literally dangling down below these symbolic Islamic heavens are the symbolic lives of the 40 heroes. This symbolic damnation is repeated over and over in Murdoch’s design. The memorial is not just any mosque, it is an al Qaeda victory mosque.

So much for trying to reach out to Islam without bothering to vet what part of Islam is being reached out to. Nothing could be worse for the decent people of the Islamic world than to hand a great victory to the very worst in the Islamic world. That is the problem with doing this Muslim-outreach thing on the sly.

Knowing the American people would never go along with intentional Islamic outreach, the Memorial Project had to cover up what actually went on in the jury room, and once they got into cover-up mode, they just kept covering up revelation after revelation about what is actually contained in Murdoch’s design.

Sokolowski’s own vile cover-up: attributing the Crescent choice to the families, after vilifying family members who opposed the Crescent design

Here is how the Post-Gazette reported on local preacher Ron McRae, who believed that architect Paul Murdoch had intended the Crescent as a tribute to Islam:

It’s a memorial to the terrorists,” McRae said. “It’s not a memorial to the innocent Americans who died there.”

But Tom Sokolowski, the director of the Andy Warhol Museum, and one of the Stage II jury members, said that claim is “asinine.”

“If the families of the 40 people who were killed felt this was an appropriate symbol to honor their loved ones, then I think he is delusional,” he said. “To take this small-minded, bigoted view is disgusting and repellent.”

Sokolowski knew that family members on the jury had taken that exact same “disgusting and repellent” view because he had said as much to their faces, and now here he was pretending that it was McRae, not himself, who was vilifying the families. Absolute moral trash of the highest order, even if he is just a feckless little worm. By intent, he is as evil as Murdoch.

Gordon Felt’s defense of the Crescent design is also belied by what transpired on the jury:

Gordon Felt, whose brother, Edward, died in the crash, called the focus on the crescent an “unfortunate distraction,” from the fourth anniversary memorial service tomorrow at the crash site.

Still, he continued, “It would be silly of us to have some sort of symbolism [in the memorial] that would be offensive to people.”

This from the man whose own sister in law had spoken in favor of the “reaching out” symbolism of the Crescent, symbolism that was seen by other family members as intending to reach out to Islam, inspiring the most dreadful offense. All this is FACT, and Gordon Felt waves off any thought of it as “silly.”

Did Gerald Bingham lie in his letter to the Memorial Project?

Mr. Bingham’s letter to the Memorial Project (p. 21 here) was timed to counter Mr. Burnett’s appearance at the 2008 Project meeting. It in-effect calls Mr. Burnett a liar, denying that Tom Sr. had ever raised any protest about Islamic symbolism when they served on the jury together:

Attention: Joanne Hanley
RE: Mr. Tom Burnett’s disapproval of the Memorial scheduled to be built honoring those on United Flight 93

Please read the following letter into the minutes of the Flight 93 board meeting scheduled for August 2, 2008.

I served on the Jury to select the final design for the Flight 93 Memorial along with Mr. Burnett. As I recall, Tom liked the design with a line of rocks along a 2 ½ mile walking trail. He indicated in his discussion with me that when it came to final vote that this would be the design of his choice. After the vote was taken and his design was not chosen he was very upset. Not once during these discussions did he mention that the design chosen by a majority vote of the committee had anything to do with a “symbol to the terrorist” as he is now saying.

The final design was chosen because its’ layout fit the landscape where the plane crashed and kept with the surrounding area.

I believe that Mr. Burnett has forgotten that this memorial is for 40 individual people who were on a flight taken over by terrorists and that all 40 of those people became heroes that day. All he is accomplishing at this point is causing other families aggravation and needless controversy.

We need to forge ahead with the plans as voted upon and join together as one just like our loved-ones did on United Flight 93, September 11, 2001.

Respectfully,
Gerald Bingham
Father of Mark Bingham

Mr. Bingham’s denial that Tom Sr. said anything about Islamic symbolism is contradicted by numerous data points, starting with the fact that Mr. Burnett spoke out to the press immediately after Crescent design was unveiled in 2005:

Tom Burnett Sr., whose son died in the crash, said he made an impassioned speech to his fellow jurors about what he felt the crescent represented.

“I explained this goes back centuries as an old-time Islamic symbol,” Burnett said. “I told them we’d be a laughing stock if we did this.”

But his fellow jurors — and it turns out, many of the other family members — disagree with his interpretation.

“I got blown off.”

But not entirely. The jurors, in their final report, suggested the name of Murdoch’s design be changed from crescent to something with less religious significance, like an arc or circle.

This is corroborated by Helene Fried, who helped to manage the design competition:

Fried said the connection was raised by some history buffs on the jury during three days of deliberations last month.

Compare “old time Islamic symbol,” with “history buffs.” And if the Jury’s statement that the Crescent name is “tied to specific religious iconography” was not in response to Mr. Burnett’s protests, where did it come from? Is Bingham saying that others on the jury were more vehement than Mr. Burnett in pointing out and objecting to this tie?

Then there is Mr. Burnett’s account of Tom Sokolowski calling him “asinine” for objecting to the Islamic symbolism of the crescent. This is corroborated by the fact that Sokolowski used the exact same language to condemn Pastor Ron McRae. Altogether, the evidence is overwhelming that it is Gerald Bingham who is lying when he accuses Mr. Burnett of lying.

For the sake of the families

Bingham makes his motivation clear. He opposes Mr. Burnett because:

All he is accomplishing at this point is causing other families aggravation and needless controversy.

But notice what Bingham doesn’t say. He is willing to discuss how Mr. Burnett voted, but he keeps his own vote secret. (Gerald Bingham has been divorced from Mark Bingham’s mother Alice Hoglan since the 1970′s, so her stated approval of Muslim-outreach in the Flight 93 Memorial should not be linked to him.)

If Bingham voted for the Crescent, his secrecy about his vote would make no sense. Everyone from Sokolowski on up appeals to the will of the families. Bingham himself does this. These appeals obviously turn on whether the nine votes for the Crescent design came from family members or from the cadre of left-wing design professionals who outnumbered the families 8 to 7.

For Bingham’s objective of ending the controversy, the most weighty thing he could say is that he voted for it, but he doesn’t. And how could he have voted for the Crescent? This is a man who is so keen to avoid pain for the families that he is even willing to tell slanderous lies about the one family member he blames for dragging out the controversy. Surely such a man would never have voted in the first place for a design that was already causing the most extreme anguish to multiple family members.

Ed Root is also loud in his condemnations but mum about his vote

Jury member Ed Root also attacks Mr. Burnett and Mr. Rawls for continuing to oppose the Crescent design (p. 22 here):

Those who oppose this Memorial, for whatever misplaced reasons, have voiced their belief on numerous occasions. That is a striking example of the democracy we hold dear. When those unfounded beliefs turn to a zealotry that attempts to overthrow the very democratic process that selected the winning design it does a terrible disservice to those who worked long and diligently during the design process and, to me, it mocks those very 40 that we long to honor. Our nation is one of laws and due process. To let a few destroy what many have built is not democracy, but tyranny.

Yet Root too keeps his vote secret. It could just be embarrassment, not wanting to admit that he voted for such an obvious perversion, crammed to the gills with Islamic-shaped crescents. Or it could be that he was better than that, and despite the magnificence of Murdoch’s Crescent, was unwilling to vote for as design that other family members found so appallingly offensive.

Mr. Burnett says he liked Mr. Root, and it is easy to see why. They both believe the passengers and crew were fighting, not just to stop the terrorist attack, but to get back to their families:

“The people of Flight 93 wanted to live,” Root said while visiting “Father Al” and the chapel in July. “There’s no doubt in my mind, they didn’t want to die.”

That distinguishes the passengers and crew from the hijackers, in Root’s eyes.

“[The passengers and flight attendants] wanted to try to get control of the plane and, if possible, to survive,” he said. “But they knew from all of the phone calls that if they didn’t do something, it would be far worse. So it really is this comparison of philosophies of a free society versus a terrorist society. One is, their cause is death; the other is, their cause is life. And that’s what makes this worthy of a national memorial. That’s what makes this worth being remembered.

Maybe he can join with Mr. Burnett in demanding an explanation for Memorial Superintendent Keith Newlin’s claim that it was the passengers and crew who crashed the airplane: “They are the one’s who brought the plane down,” says Newlin. This is his way of avoiding the implication that the circle-breaking crescent-creating theme of the memorial can only be depicting the actions of the terrorists. “[The terrorists] TRIED to break the peace,” says Newlin, “but they failed.” Surely Root would disagree.

But Root is wrong about who is refusing to respect democratic principles. Their 15 person jury does not take precedence over the will of the nation, clearly expressed in the national uproar over the original Crescent of Embrace design. The Memorial Project promised to remove the offensive features—the Islamic symbol shapes—but they never did. They just disguised them.

“The difference is at best a subtle one”

Thanks to Powerline for exposing this as well:

Crescent of Embrace, left. Circle of Embrace, right.

They call it a broken circle now, but the unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is just the original Crescent of Embrace. All they did was recolor the graphics, then add an extra arc of trees, placed to the rear of a person facing into the giant crescent, that explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle. As a result, Murdoch’s circle-breaking crescent-creating theme is now even more explicit, and so are its obvious terrorist-memorializing implications.

Will other front-line conservative blogs and publications take notice?

John Hinderaker is a top lawyer, a lifelong expert at evaluating evidence. When he announces that there is serious substance to the Flight 93 controversy, serious people ought to listen.

Everybody understands the difficulty. With multiple Flight 93 family members crying their anguish against anyone who prolongs the controversy, people need to actually look at the facts before taking a position. So take a look! MANY of the facts are perfectly straightforward and utterly damning. Not everyone can be as brave as Pamela Geller, but no one should let the whiff of danger stop them from examining this most important issue.

We’re talking no less than the re-hijacking of Flight 93 by an actual al Qaeda sympathizing architect. Think 9/11 folks. The whiff of danger should be an attractant, a chance to tackle a hijacker. Those lied-to and in some cases lying family members need to have their fat pulled out of the fire. Ride to the sound of the guns.