Do you recall a time, a few years back, when the media wouldn’t shut up about a supposed outing of an agent? Yup, the left and the media were pissed.

I bet you could just imagine the firestorm of coverage that would result if instead of a former Secretary of State leaking a name it was our President….right?

Guess not:

Just a week ago the establishment media was aflutter with news that a CIA double-agent had thwarted a new type of underwear bomb attack targeting U.S. flights in a plot devised by al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula.

But as the week progressed, a developing bombshell story got buried under President Obama’s gay marriage announcement. Not only is the supposed CIA asset not a CIA asset at all, but the entire operation was exposed prematurely and the double-agent’s life was immediately threatened by an intelligence leak that very well may have come out of the White House for political gain.

As the story broke, the establishment media was more than happy to attribute the intelligence coup to the CIA and the Obama administration, describing the mole as a “CIA informant.”

It turns out that wasn’t true. The double-agent hadn’t been recruited and placed by the CIA, but by British intelligence, who also managed the operation. In fact, the Americans had only recently been made aware of the joint British-Saudi effort.

The leaks about the operation from the American side have infuriated British intelligence officials, who had hoped to continue the operation. The leaks not only scuttled the mission but put the life of the asset in jeopardy. Even CIA officials, joining their MI5 and MI6 counterparts, were describing the leaks as “despicable,” attributing them to the Obama administration.

As the stillborn investigation into the leaks continues (stillborn, because if the leaks are in fact traced to the White House, there will be no repercussions), the zeal with which the establishment media trumpeted the supposed CIA coup won’t likely be surpassed by the more important story of how the Obama administration attempted to score political points at the expense of one of the most important intelligence operations since 9/11.

Wait, for “political gain?”

Wasn’t the left and the media very upset that non-spy Valerie Plame’s name was uttered by Richard Armitage for “political gain?”

Weren’t there hearings and trials and all that? Or was I just imagining that?

And here we had a Yemeni deep cover agent that we may get once in a generation:

One US official has noted that “this operation could have gone on for some time … when it was cut off by a leak”. Even once the agent turned up in Saudi Arabia, it was clear that his intelligence was helping to target a spate of crucial drone strikes within Yemen – including one that killed AQAP’s head of external operations, a man responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.

If the group learnt of their member’s defection from the media, who knows what countermeasures they took? How did that stymie further arrests or airstrikes? AQAP’s chief bomb-maker, Ibrahim Al-Asiri, might even have escaped as a result.

After all, the agent was reportedly evacuated from Yemen two weeks before the appointed date for his attack. He might have remained quietly operational for that entire period, contacting his colleagues and passing on their location. This leak appears to have frustrated a painstaking and risky operation, of the sort that cannot come around very often.

But the Obama administration deliberately scuttled that huge undercover operation, and put the life of a British agent in jeopardy to boot. For what? To boost his re-election hopes. This wasn’t some non-spy desk jockey at the CIA. This was someone who had infiltrated al-Qaeda for god’s sake!

But the MSM and the left are ignoring it.

At least one Democrat lawmaker isn’t

Senator Diane Fienstein:

“AQAP is the number-one threat to our country. … The leak really did endanger sources and methods, and the leak, I think, really has to be prosecuted.”

Congressman Peter King:

“This was more secret than any operation I’m familiar with — even more classified than bin Laden. … That’s why I’m saying the FBI should do a full and complete investigation, because this really is criminal in the literal sense of the word to leak out this type of sensitive, classified information on really almost unparalleled penetration of the enemy.”

Congressman Mike Rogers:

“This has been a damaging leak. We shouldn’t underestimate what really happened here. When you jeopardize our foreign-service liaison partners, any of them that may or may not have been involved, or you jeopardize the conclusion of wrapping up all of the people involved, that’s dangerous to our national security.”

Paging Patrick Fitzgerald….paging Patrick Fitzgerald

Exit thought….ya think they will make a movie about this?

While arguments are being made regarding the value of kills over capture…there’s also something satisfying about “swifter” forms of justice that do not drag out for years and years at taxpayers’ expense, along with making a mockery of our justice system.

After almost 12 years since the bombing of the USS Cole, Fahd al Quso has finally breathed his last:

Quso was traveling in a car with at least two other AQAP operatives when the unmanned Predators or Reapers fired missiles at his car, an intelligence official told The Long War Journal. Three AQAP operatives are believed to have been killed in the strike, which occurred at nighttime.

Quso has been sheltered by the Awlaki tribe, the same tribe that sheltered US cleric and AQAP ideologue and operational commander Anwar al Awlaki, who was killed in a US drone strike in September 2011.

The wanted AQAP leader has been the target of at least one other US airstrike, in July 2011. A convoy transporting Quso in Abyan province was hit by US aircraft, killing eight AQAP fighters. Quso survived the strike.

Previously, Quso was rumored to have been killed in a US Predator airstrike in Pakistan in September 2010. In October 2010, US intelligence officials warned The Long War Journal that the US had been unable to confirm Quso’s death. Al Qaeda did not release a martyrdom statement announcing Quso’s death.

On Dec. 7, 2010, the US State Department added Quso to the list of specially designed global terrorists, and the chief of State’s Terrorist Designations Unit told The Long War Journal that the US did not believe reports that Quso had been killed. Nine days later, Quso was interviewed by Al Sharq al Awsat and expressed surprise that people thought he had been killed in Pakistan.

Quso is considered to be a senior AQAP leader. According to the State Dept.’s designation in December 2010, he leads an al Qaeda cell in Yemen, and “is connected to other designated AQAP senior leaders, including Anwar al Awlaki [a top ideologue and propagandist], Nasir al Wuhayshi [AQAP's leader], and Said Ali al Shihri [AQAP's deputy leader].” In May 2010, Quso appeared in an AQAP propaganda video and threatened to attack the US and its interests abroad, including embassies and warships.

Quso is wanted by the FBI for his role in the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen. The suicide attack on the warship killed 17 US sailors. Quso is also known to have provided funds to a key planner of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the US. Quso was detained by Yemeni security forces after the Sept. 11 attacks, but escaped from prison in 2003. He was later recaptured in 2004, but released again by the Yemeni government in 2007, and quickly rejoined al Qaeda in Yemen.

Additionally, Quso has been identified as one of the AQAP operatives involved in the failed airline bombing attack over Detroit on Christmas Day, 2009.

It was only just last month that President Obama approved an expansion of signature drone strikes, especially in regards to Yemen.

And seeing as how much of the progressive base isn’t happy with it, he must be doing something right, after all.

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.

Like Previous Marxist Leaders, Obama Appreciates Scorched Earth Policy

We are now engaged in another great illegal war, this one is in Yemen; relax, we are only killing Al Qaeda operatives and civilians, since Obama was elected with a 6% landslide margin and has the unflinching support of American Socialists, he is not bound by the usual rules that govern presidents. The war is classified so only the readers of the New York Times and Flopping Aces know about it; however, the relatives of civilians killed in the kinetic actions have probably put the pieces together. We are striking at militant leaders with armed drones and fighter jets, so in Obama’s unique definition of war and Nobel Peace Prize qualification, it narrowly misses being designated as a war, there is also a growing power vacuum in a nation we consider to be an ally.

Yemeni troops are battling militant troops of Al Qaeda for control of the country, Obama sees the use of American firepower as an option for keeping the same militants he has helped to gain power in other oil rich Middle Eastern Countries from gaining power. Obama realizes he alone must employ a discriminating and at times prejudicial sense of judgement to designate which tyrants should stay in power and which ones should yield to Al Qaeda.

Democrats have given their tacit approval of Obama’s gunboat or airstrike diplomacy because he has the much heralded but difficult to define superior intelligence to conduct rogue wars and assassinations of enemies and American citizens with style and aplomb so characteristic of Liberal hypocrisy. Its true they would have incited their witless legions to riot if these same acts of barbarism had been committed by a Republican, but they have a committed Marxist in the White House and questioning the Party Line or the Revolution is counter revolutionary.

These latest strikes come after strikes were halted a year ago as a result of poor intelligence that resulted in significant civilian deaths and bungled missions that were complicating the goals of Obama’s objectives, if we are to assume he actually has predefined objectives, like his intelligence he plays his cards close to his chest.

Officials in Washington acknowledged that American and Saudi spies have been receiving more intel from electronic eavesdropping and informants, but they admitted that the information could be programmed and manipulated to provide strikes against rival factions, those militants can prove to be real rascals.

An anonymous Pentagon official confirmed that using airstrikes and drones is complicated because Al Qaeda operatives mingle with other rebels and antigovernment militants, thus making it difficult for Obama to send his death from the sky without appearing as if he taking sides.

The American campaign in Yemen is led by the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command, and is closely coordinated with the Central Intelligence Agency. Teams of American military and intelligence operatives have a command post in Sana, the Yemeni capital, to track intelligence about militants in Yemen and plot future strikes.

Concerned that support for the campaign could wane if the government of Yemen’s authoritarian president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, were to fall, the United States ambassador in Yemen has met recently with leaders of the opposition, partly to make the case for continuing American operations. Officials in Washington said that opposition leaders have told the ambassador, Gerald M. Feierstein, that operations against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula should continue regardless of who wins the power struggle in Sana.

The extent of America’s war in Yemen has been among the Obama administration’s most closely guarded secrets, as officials worried that news of unilateral American operations could undermine Mr. Saleh’s tenuous grip on power. Mr. Saleh authorized American missions in Yemen in 2009, but placed limits on their scope and has said publicly that all military operations had been conducted by his own troops.

American air strikes that kill civilians continue to complicate the situation; particularly, since there is no declared war or reason for the air strikes, especially for the civilians being killed and their relatives. There is always the chance of retaliation by those who feel as if their lives have been adversely affected by the death of loved ones by a trigger happy Obama.

“We’ve seen the regime move its assets away from counterterrorism and toward its own survival,” said Christopher Boucek, a Yemen expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “But as things get more and more chaotic in Yemen, the space for the Americans to operate in gets bigger,” he said.

But Mr. Boucek and others warned of a backlash from the American airstrikes, which over the past two years have killed civilians and Yemeni government officials. The benefits of killing one or two Qaeda-linked militants, he said, could be entirely eroded if airstrikes kill civilians and lead dozens of others to jihad.

Edmund J. Hull, ambassador to Yemen from 2001 to 2004 and the author of “High-Value Target: Countering Al Qaeda in Yemen,” called airstrikes a “necessary tool” but said that the United States had to “avoid collateral casualties or we will turn the tribes against us.”

Obama’s policy of consulting advisors and bureaucrats that are less intelligent than him seems to be one of the more consistent features of his administration.

The Yemeni experts seem to be at least as knowledgeable as the most intelligent President, who has yet to provide any indications of his superior intelligence.

When Barack Obama went to war on Libya he cited the War Powers Act as his justification for doing so.

A few days ago, on March 22, President Barack Obama informed Congress formally about his unilateral decision to assist in the coalition of nations protecting rebel forces and civilians in Libya from attack from Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s loyalist troops. In the formal letter, reprinted in USA Today, the president used as justification the War Powers Resolution. But said resolution is very specific in the conditions under which a president can involve the nation’s armed forces in a conflict against other nations without Congressional consent. Some wonder if Obama exceeded his authority.

Now in a report sent first to the NY Times and sent to Congress later, Obama argues that the War Powers Act does not apply to his actions.

In contending that the limited American role did not oblige the administration to ask for authorization under the War Powers Resolution, the report asserted that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Still, the White House acknowledged, the operation has cost the Pentagon $716 million in its first two months and will have cost $1.1 billion by September at the current scale of operations.

“U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”

Now that’s pretty interesting.

Under this definition Obama is free to bomb anyone on Earth with drones for an unlimited amount of time and spend an unlimited amount of money doing it. Further, Obama could drop a nuke each on Syria, Libya and Yemen and be in accordance with the above definition. Obama could take out John Boehner or Sarah Palin under that definition.

This is the guy who opposed “dumb wars” (i.e. not those he starts)

This is the guy who said our involvement would be “days, not weeks.”

This is guy who said “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

This is the guy whose VP said he’d impeach a President who took us to war without Congressional approval.

We are now in several wars without Congressional approval.

The other screaming question is- if the War Powers Act doesn’t apply, then exactly what was the justification for involving the US in this war in the first place?

What we are seeing with great pain is the amount of sheer dishonesty Congress is willing to tolerate from a lying President. What ought to worry everyone is that tolerance for dishonesty and tolerance for trashing the laws of the land sets the stage for the emergence of dictatorships. Impeachment may be the only remedy for Obama’s disregard for the law.

By now democrats would have impeached George Bush had he done something like this, so you’re not just an idiot to believe anything Obama says, you’re an idiot to believe anything a democrat says.

Word comes that Barack Obama has engaged the United States into a fourth war- in Yemen. Once again this is done without the advice or consent of Congress. This diminutive property on the Arabian Peninsula is clearly an imminent threat to the United States. As the costs for Barack’s Libyan adventure spiral to who knows where Obama finds another swamp in which to mire the United States. The guy who was dead set against the war in Iraq has now initiated two of his own wars. The guy who said “Change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power” has toppled one government in the Middle East and is waging war on two more.

It started in Tunisia. President Zine el Abidine Ben Ali was forced out following a revolt. What is to follow is at best uncertain, but there are clues. Islamic Fundamentalists burned down three brothels in Tunis.

Under Ali, Tunisia was fairly Westernized:

About 98 percent of the population of 10 million is Muslim, but Tunisia’s liberal social policies and Western lifestyle shatter stereotypes of the Arab world. Abortion is legal, polygamy is banned and women commonly wear bikinis on the country’s Mediterranean beaches. Wine is openly sold in supermarkets and imbibed at bars across the country.

Any changes will be the bellwether for the future. Elections are expected in July or August and at least one Islamic candidate is anticipated. Four months after the revolt, economic conditions are deteriorating and certain groups thrive in such a milieu. Ennahdha, a religious political movement outlawed under Ali, is reorganizing. Ennahdha is allied with another similar group- the Muslim Brotherhood.

Perhaps seeing himself as the George Washington of the Arab Spring, Obama kicked out Hosni Mubarak out of Cairo to make room for democracy but dark clouds are appearing over the region.

The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis have formed a coalition to bring about an Islamic state in Egypt.

Salafists are generally described as Muslims who consider the period of early Islam and the “Salaf” (forefathers), or first generations of Muslims, as exemplary role models. The term “Salafi Jihadists” refers to those Salafis who support a violent, jihadist ideology.

The Muslim Brotherhood, frequently described as “fundamentalist”, has been banned in Egypt since 1948. Until recently.

The Muslim Brotherhood, once illegal in Egypt, has been legalized and recognized as a political party under the name “Freedom and Justice Party.”

It is argued that this merger has placed Egypt’s Christians in great peril.

Since the pro-democratic happenings in Tahrir Square in January, Egypt’s Christian minority has been consistently persecuted by uncorked crazies. Churches have been set alight and some areas of the country have grown so parlous that Christians are holed up in their homes, afraid to attend Mass even on Palm Sunday. The assurances of Abd Al-Azim, a leader of Gama’a in Alexandria, will have failed to persuade them to do otherwise: “If the Christians want safety they should submit to the rule of God and be confident that the Islamic sharia will protect them.”

Just this week, 190 people were detained overnight in Cairo after 12 people were killed and over 180 hurt in the working-class neighbourhood of Imbaba, where two Coptic churches and people’s homes were firebombed. The reason? A Salafi-hatched rumour that a Christian woman had converted to Islam in order to marry a Muslim man and was being held against her will in the Saint Mena Church (one of the two burnt). This came after another Christian, Camilia Shehata, had gone on television to deny a similar allegation about her proscribed conversion to Islam.

(emphases mine)

The hand writing is on the wall.

One down, several more to go.

After disposing of Mubarak, Obama put the cross hairs on Moammar Gaddafi. First, Obama demanded that Gaddafi leave Libya. When Gaddafi refused to knuckle under, Barack Obama, who ignored the “Arab Spring” in Iran, found something or other in Libya so compelling that he initiated a “kinetic military operation” which was to take “days, not weeks.” The War Powers Act has expired and Barack Obama has once again let us know he does not need to operate within the confines of the law or the Constitution. Obama now speaks of our participation in these wars as “NATO” to confuse liberals so they won’t think the US is involved. For the very same reason, Obama uses the term “kinetic military action” instead of “war.” Obama’s KMA has overtly targeted Gaddafi for death. Instead, it has resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of civilians and members of Gaddafi’s family, including a son and three grandchildren.

Next in the queue is Yemen. The US “condemned bloody political violence in Yemen” and demanded that Yemen’s President Saleh leave his country. Saleh dug his heels in and before you could say Fatoot Saleh was injured in a bombing, allegedly at the hands of an “outlaw gang.” By pure coincidence the US has stepped up its covert (kinetic?) military operations in Yemen, allegedly targeting the Al Qaida militants who are going to fill the void in the country that Obama is working hard to create.

Obama’s foreign policy for the Middle East is clear and it is straight out of the Windy City. He asks you to leave and if you don’t, you get a visit from the drone fairy.

Obama can possibly force all of these leaders from power but without direct intervention, he opens the door for the most motivated of opportunists- the Islamists that these leaders kept suppressed for a long time. Bad as they were or are, the leaders whose elimination Barack Obama is overseeing were allies in the war on terror.

There is unrest in Algeria now as well that has been ongoing for nearly twenty years. The roots of that unrest are not different from the rest of the region- Fundamentalist Islam. Algeria is also an ally in the war on terror.

Most curiously, corruption and human rights abuse- the very reasons given for the revolts in these countries- is not enough to thwart a meeting between Barack Obama and President Ali Bongo Ondimba of Gabon:

The White House is rolling out the red carpet today for President Ali Bongo Ondimba of Gabon, whose penniless West African regime is notorious for its human rights abuses and widespread corruption (hat tip: this eye-opening report by ABC News). In yet another display of extraordinarily bad judgment, the Obama administration is extending the hand of friendship to another prominent tyrant, just two days after Washington sided with Hugo Chavez and various Latin American despots against Britain in a declaration over the Falkland Islands by the Organisation of American States (OAS).

Gabon is not an ally in the war on terror. To coin a term- WTF?

Which is pretty much what Nile Gardiner asks:

Is this really the kind of “partner” the White House wants to cultivate? The decision by President Obama to host one of Africa’s worst despots is a sad reflection on the current US administration, whose dictator-friendly foreign policy, from Tehran to Khartoum to Libreville, is an embarrassment for the leader of the free world.

Barack Obama is setting the stage for a Fundamentalist Islamic Spring. The unrest is too well timed. The uprisings are too similar to one another. It is not what it appears to be at the surface.

I have known a few really good hunters; although, I don’t include myself among that august group. I am incredibly lucky and that alone has saved my bacon on numerous occasions; actually, being incredibly lucky, sums up my bear hunting skills. Otherwise, I would have passed over that great divide several times. Usually, you a need a lot of luck when you make an incredible mistake; I have made many and I am still here among the living. Typically, it involves a mistake in judgement or breaking one of the simple rules of common sense.

One of the primary rules of common sense is to keep your rifle close to you; this is just common sense, pure and simple, like keeping your lover close to you when you go to the big city. I know, there are people who travel in bear country without rifles and survive for years, but when there is a mistake made, the debt to be paid is always expensive need, like a mistake made when playing with hand grenades, it is a big mistake.

My friend Knarley Manners was driving on the road between Chetwynd and Hudson’s Hope near Mobely Lake when he noticed a bicycle on the road with no rider. Make no mistake, Knarley is a fast thinker and he figured there was trouble. He jumped out of the truck with his rifle in time to see a Grizzly dragging a bicyclist, wearing racing Speedos, kicking and screaming as he was being dragged into the bush. Knarley ran forward towards the bear to get a good shot, so as to avoid killing the bicyclist with a poorly aimed shot and killed the bear with a 30-06 round through the brain pan. Knarley was rather disgusted with the man for wearing such tight revealing underwear without any other clothing, but he threw him in the truck without touching him too closely and even threw his bicycle in the back. You can’t blame Knarley for being disgusted; he had never seen bicycle racing outfits before. In telling the story over the last 40 years or so, Knarley still concentrates on the revealing nature of a man riding a bicycle in tight underwear, rather than the killing of the bear. It was a summer bear and a good thing or Knarley would have made him wait until he had skinned the bear before he’d drive him to the Chetwynd hospital.

After a few hundred stitches and a little rest and relaxation the bicyclist was back on the road, wearing his fancy underwear, searching for new adventures. I would call that a close call in the world of survival. If we depend on a Knarley being there to bail us out when we get in trouble, while wearing our underwear in public, we will probably be disappointed more times than not. I did save Knarley’s life once and he has resented that favor he’s owed me for nearly 50 years now. The one time I would have really appreciated his legendary rifle, he was nowhere around and like the bicyclist it nearly cost me my life, but at least I was dressed properly. Knarley would have appreciated that, if it had gone the wrong way.

It was August 15 th, opening day of moose season and I couldn’t even find moose droppings. By mid-afternoon it had warmed up to the point that shooting a moose could have been a curse rather than a blessing with blow flies and the worry over spoiled meat making the hunt a disaster. I had my backpack with my fly rod and there were fish rising in the river. I fished along a gravel bank for a quarter of a mile or so and caught two nice Grayling for lunch. I gutted them right away and put them in a canvas pouch sling crossed over one shoulder. I just dipped them in the river once in a while to keep them fresh and cool, and kept fishing. There was a rock ledge that jutted out for 30 feet into the river, there was three or four inches of fast water running over it and a coating of moss made it very slippery, but it would give me a wide rang of casting opportunities. I leaned my trust 8mm Mauser against a tree and walked out on the slippery moss with my moccasins, being careful not to slip on the big submerged rock. I could now try to cache that monster fish that seemed to always elude me. He had to be lurking out there in some cold dark hole, just waiting to take a chance on my fly.

I fished for twenty minutes or so and wandered about 30 feet on the submerged ledge. The water was now about ten inches deep and the heat of the day made it seem even colder. It was getting harder to keep from slipping, but I paid homage to the fishing gods and kept trying to entice the grandaddy of them all. Suddenly, bang, I had a good strike and he was hooked solid. He came up out of the water and walked on his tail for eight inches or so. It was a Dolly and a big one. He fought so hard my moose hide moccasins lost traction and down I went. I held onto the rod, but now I was sitting on the slippery rock and the rushing water pushed me on over into the deep water on the down stream side. I was now in cold deep water up to my elbows and fighting to keep from being swept downstream. I turned to try and climb back on the ledge when I noticed a two year old Grizzly walking out on the ledge to join the party.

Good bye Dolly Varden and fly rod, the situation was deteriorating quickly and the fishing was over for the day. He was walking slowly and ever so much closer. My rifle was on the other side of him leaning against a tree and my Buck knife was safely concealed in a pouch on my belt. I could draw my knife, but seriously, if you are reduced to fighting a Grizzly with a knife, you might as well kiss your ass goodbye, because you are going to need some big time luck to stay alive more than a few minutes; even a two year old, weighing a mere 400 pounds or so, is a formidable opponent. I knew I couldn’t out swim him, that would be a joke even for an olympic swimmer. I had one chance, I took the fish sling off my shoulder and took one fish out of the pouch and threw it downstream toward the bank. It landed in the water and he didn’t even seem to notice it. I quickly smashed the remaining fish with my elbow against the ledge to release more scent and grabbed a rock from the ledge about twice the size of my fist and put in the pouch. I swung it around my head like young David facing Goliath and prayed that he would notice the pouch flying through that air and that the pouch would go in the right direction.

Instead of slinging the contents, I let go of the whole sling and it landed about 20 feet down river on the bank. The bear saw the canvas covered fish and followed it with his gaze, he figured it was fairly interesting and turned to check it out before having me for dinner as the main course.

Of all bears, the two year old and the geriatric bear are the most dangerous. The two year old is kicked away from its sow during its two year old year and realizes, albeit belatedly, how important those lessons on finding food were. The geriatric bear is having a hard time securing food also. Its claws are often cracked, broken, worn out and infected as well as its teeth; the infirmities of ages also plague the bear and arthritis slows it down so that it can no longer run down game. Under these conditions of starvation, either bear is likely to lose its innate feelings of shyness towards humans and realize these humans are fairly pathetic in the physical abilities department; especially, if they don’t have that curious weapon, the rifle. While the bear was ripping my canvas fish stringer to shred to get at the tasty morsel, I fought the current, making my way to shore and slipped out of the water, so agonizingly close to the bear.

The bear only gave me cautious glances as he started eating the canvas sack to fully enjoy the fish flavor. I backed up to my rifle to keep my eyes on the bear and hopefully not let him know that I was intimidated. I picked it up with a sense of relief and checked to be sure there was a round in the chamber. I continued backing into the forest and kept my eyes on the bear. He was only a two year old summer bear, his hide was virtually valueless on the fur market and not worth skinning, so I really didn’t want to kill him and waste a bear and a bullet if it wasn’t necessary. Once I was in the forest, I would take thirty long and fast walk strides, counting them and being sure each one landed softly and quietly; again, I didn’t want the bear to hear me running away and think I was afraid. He could follow my scent or hear me, so every thirty strides I would slowly turn doing a 360 to be sure I wasn’t being followed. I stayed clear of thick brush to keep the bear from setting up an ambush.

The more distance I put between the bear and me, the better I began to feel.

I almost made a fatal mistake, but like the bicyclist, I survived by pure luck.

If you remember the title, you may be wondering why you read a story that was supposedly about bear hunting and no one has done any bear hunting: the point is, the bears were hunting and humans unwittingly became the object of the hunt. In today’s world, especially when dealing with warlike countries, who for all purposes are as unpredictable and even more dangerous than the two year old and geriatric Grizzlies. Their only predictable qualities are that they are probably starving and looking for a sign of weakness to make an easy kill.

In the commission of our current foreign policy, we have turned our back and ignored the actions of several of our most dangerous enemies and even offered the gift of improved diplomatic relations and tacit approval of their cruel methods directed toward their own people by ignoring the abuse. Our enemies see confusion, irresolution, misdirection, and disingenuousness of our foreign policy. We are prejudiced against Democracies and praise totalitarian governments pointing out their accomplishments and plans for the future. We have basically deserted Israel and cry over the policies and sacrifices that have led to a constitutional Iraq: while praising the roads and rail systems of China. We apologize to the most tyrannical regimes in the Middle East, Iran and Syria, while they export terror to Iraq, strive to develop nuclear weapons, kill and torture their own citizen demonstrators. Yet, we promote their ruthless dictators as reformers and apologize to them for past infractions while promising not to interfere with their internal affairs. While these tyrannical anti-American dictators become emboldened by our impotent foreign policy, we turn on pro-American dictators who have merely threatened radical reactions to demonstrations. We excuse the cold blooded murder in Iran and Syria by repeating an innocuous word so favored by the Left that it excuses mayhem with a blanket dispensation, thus the bloody dictators learn to call themselves “Revolutionaries”; immediately, transgressions are justified in the fight for revolution and the dismembering of Capitalist influences and power.

Our military adventure in the small thinly populated country of Libya has added to the confusion and escalated the killing and mayhem. We have demonstrated what happens to a country that abandons its nuclear ambitions and how easy it is for a country of seven million to hamstring the military might of America. We are desperate in our efforts to justify our military expenditure and to claim some type of success in Libya, so our president has increased the level of his war game by employing his favorite killing technique, that of using drones to hunt and kill one man. A strategy that has failed in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in the most famous man hunt of all time.

Domestically, our president’s policies belie his Nobel Prize winning skills; especially, when he interrupts the nation’s business because a close Black friend is justifiably arrested by a White policeman and ignores a savage attack on a White transgendered girl by two Black girls in a McDonalds close to his home, an attack that left the White girl in a seizure, an attack that a Black crew of workers laughed at, filmed, refused to stop, and warned the attackers about the approach of police officers. The nation waits to see if the president and his lackey, Eric Holder will prosecute the girls for a Hate crime or whether that designation is only applied when Blacks are attacked.

Yes, our president confuses our allies; while instilling confidence among our enemies, by a policy of immunity from retribution for execution of acts against the US and our former allies. He has also left the American people bewildered by his irrational international and domestic policies and actions.

There is an old joke in bear hunting camps that has probably been repeated for thousands of years, “Sometimes, you eat the bear: sometimes the bear eats you.” Obviously, the joke is funny because the bear only eats you one time and that is the end. Thus, it is important to remember, the old lesson that mistakes around bears are extremely costly. We are making a multitude of mistakes in our ongoing bear hunts and each mistake is a step on the inevitable path to destruction and perdition; every American realizes, we can rely on blind luck for only so long, before the hungry bear takes a big bite out of our arse.

The reasons for Barack Obama’s intervention in Libya has never been really clear- or honest. The most commonly offered explanation given for bombing Libya has been the prevention of a humanitarian disaster. Sunday morning, Obama’s Abbott and Costello foreign policy team said that Libya was a direct threat to US national interest and at the same time that it was not. Of course, that does not explain why we interfere in Libya but not in other regions in which human rights are being oppressed- like North Korea, Iran or China.

Or Syria.

In 2010 Barack Obama renewed sanctions on Syria, calling Syria an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” At that time Obama had little good to say about Syria.

But he said that Syria’s “continuing support for terrorist organisations and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programmes, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States”.

In the wake of those comments, Hillary Clinton declared that the US would not intervene in Syria even though more than 60 “protesters” were killed in a week of violence. In her statement excluding Syria from intervention Clinton went so far as to call Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad a “reformer.”

So why are we in Libya but not Syria?

First, let’s have a look at the countries in Sarkozy’s coalition (This really is Sarkozy’s coalition. Obama was very late to the game but fully expect Obama to take credit for anything that comes out well).

COALITION COUNTRIES – LIBYA 2011
United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate

Now let’s look at a diagram. It is a diagram of where Libyan oil goes.

You might notice that the major consumers of Libyan oil are Italy, France, China, Germany and Spain.

Libya has the greatest oil reserves in Africa.

As of 2008 the US was receiving over 100,000 barrels of oil per day from Libya.

Several US oil companies have interests in Libya and so does Halliburton.

Note: A few weeks before Obama began bombing Libya, the US State Department allowed Moammar Gaddafi’s son to visit the US, spending a few weeks in the US, touring ports and military facilities.

Let’s look at another diagram. This one depicts the destinations of Libyan refugees.

Refugees from Libya are flooding into the neighboring countries (Primarily Egypt and Tunisia) and Italy. More ominously, it is thought that between 750,000 and 2 million Libyans could flood into Europe.

He (Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini) also warned of the potential danger of a power vacuum leading to the formation of an Islamic state in the east of the country. Mr Frattini predicted that the collapse of the regime would lead to the “self proclamation of the so-called Islamic emirate of Benghazi”.

Some of us believe that this is already a fait accompli even if the country does not split.

These are the real reasons we are bombing Libya- the flow of oil and the Muslim exodus. One could understand coming to the aid of Italy and France and prevent a huge Muslim flood into Europe. One could understand our allies seeking to maintain the flow of oil. But that’s not what the President stipulated as the reasons for our involvement and it once again shows why you’re an idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says.

Right now we are not protecting “civilians.” We are engaged as the air cover for the rebel war against Gaddafi. The goal is to remove Gaddafi from power. Do not for one moment think it is anything else. And it could all end very badly.

We keep hearing about these “freedom fighters” in Tunisia, Egypt. Libya, and Yemen. We are told by the press that the people of these countries have spontaneously rose up to overthrow the oppressive dictatorships that have long held them imprisoned in poverty and despair. But who are these “freedom fighters” really, and how are they being trained and equipped? This paper questions whether what at first glance appears to be random events, might actually be a highly coordinated strategic war against the West by a surreptitious yet highly successful foe whose intent is upon global domination.

While we have been chasing Al’ Qaeda across the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Osama Ben Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri have been busily fomenting revolutions throughout the Middle East. From Egypt to Yemen, from Bahrain to Libya, Al Qaeda is on the rise, and we are helping them remove the stumbling blocks (current regimes) from their path. Should they succeed in their quest, they will establish an Islamic Caliphate over the entire Middle East and control a good portion of the World’s oil. I do not make this claim lightly. This is their strategy and they are following it to the letter. It is their intention to destabilize the entire region in order for the Caliphate to emerge as the only credible option. As of the time of this article, revolutions are currently under way in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain with demonstrations also in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and Algeria. As we shall see, It is not unreasonable to assume the Al Qaeda has a hand in all of them. But for the purpose of this essay we will focus primarily on just one, Egypt.

Egypt

Although Egypt was not the first to fall, it is thus far the largest and perhaps most significant. Although the press constantly refer to Hosni Mubarak’s ouster as a “democratic revolution”, it remains to be seen whether a democracy actually takes shape. There are strong forces pushing for an Islamic state similar to Iran’s theocracy. This has been the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood first and later the Egyptian Islamic Jihad from their beginning. These are the also the groups that have been engaged in the “jihad” or “struggle” for Islamic supremacy since the assassinations of Nasser and Sadat. Members of both groups have been jailed and/or executed for various and sundry crimes against the state, including conspiracy, assassination and murder. There is little doubt that both these groups are involved up to their eyebrows in the current revolution. But there may also be another group equally committed to the collapse of the Mubarak regime and the end of Western influence in Egypt, possibly a group which also seeks the formation of an Islamic Caliphate…Al’ Qaeda.

To prove that Al’ Qaeda is tied to the Egyptian revolution is not difficult. To begin with Al’ Qaeda has a long history with both the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Indeed, Al’ Qaeda’s number 2 man, Ayman Al Zawahiri was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood from the age of 14 before becoming a founding member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, whose stated goal was to overthrow the government of Egypt in order to establish an Islamic Caliphate. To achieve this end, Zawahiri has engaged in numerous acts of terror including, the November 19, 1995 bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad and possibly the tourist massacre at Luxor, Egypt on November 17,1997 for which Zawahiri was tried and found guilty in abstentia by an Egyptian court in 1999. The attack was brutally successful and tourism to Egypt dropped precipitously under concerns that the Egyptian government could not guarantee the safety of foreign tourists to their ancient sites.

According to sources, after meeting Osama ben Laden in Peshawar, Pakistan, merged his Egyptian Islamic Jihad cell into Al’ Qaeda. Since their union, Osama ben Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri have embarked on a relentless crusade to destabilize the West in order to institute the long awaited Islamic Caliphate throughout the Middle East. They have spawned Al’ Qaeda cells throughout the world spreading their doctrine of Islamic purity and supremacy. They have also been directly linked to terrorist acts of murder and mayhem around the globe, and they are dead set on establishing a world wide Islamic Caliphate, no matter how many people they have to sacrifice in order to make that happen, or how long it might take. Just prior to the fall of the Mubarak regime, on February 28, 2011, Zawahiri released a tape on behalf of Al’ Qaeda praising the Egyptian revolution and calling for the installation of the Caliphate. (see: Al Qaeda looks to co-opt Egypt, Tunisia unrest)

Since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, many of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Jihad prisoners have been released, including Ayman Al Zawahiri’s own brother, who has been imprisoned for the past ten years, supposedly in order to gain intelligence about Al Qaeda’s number two. Should any sort of elections occur, the Muslim Brotherhood, with its attendant military wing, the Islamic Jihad, is well positioned to influence, if not control, a new government, especially if support from the military is forthcoming. Should that happen, the Caliphate will have begun and in all likelihood will expand with other Islamacist regimes having to cast aside their differences in order to merge with the Caliphate, especially if the Caliphate becomes headquartered in Saudi Arabia wherein lies Mecca and Medina, or better yet Jerusalem, where Mohammed purportedly flew to heaven on his magical horse, Buraq. Obviously Israel would have to cease to exist for this to occur, so the Israelis have been taking a hard, nervous look at these revolts popping up around the Middle East.

Like a neutron star pulling other systems into its gravitational field, so would the nascent Caliphate draw all Muslim regimes unto itself, beginning with the ones closest, spreading ever outward until the entire muslim world falls under its power. These are the plans of Al’ Qaeda. And if you think they are not well on their way in accomplishing their goal, think again!

Below are some links to Al Qaeda’s push to take over the region. In addition to where we know Al’ Qaeda already maintains a presence, ie Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia…

Interpol Says Al-Queda is a Growing Threat in Africa

Al Qaida commander backs Libyan rebels in message

Al Qaeda in Yemen Worries the West

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)

Is al-Qaeda working in Nigeria?

Six Al-Qaeda suspects detained in Bahrain

Morocco breaks up al Qaeda terror cell

Interesting to watch the changes coming in the middle east and to think….President Bush was behind much of this.

We have seen our vulnerability – and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny – prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder – violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
- President George W. Bush (Second Inaugural Address)

Egyptian President Mubarek’s days are numbered it appears, under strong pressure from the Egyptian people and the U.S. to make an orderly transition to democracy.

The Bush Doctrine….that doctrine which was his justification for toppling the Taliban and Saddam. It wasn’t enough to destroy al-Qaeda and the Iraqi WMD’s but to turn those countries into strong democracies so that they could be a beacon for the rest of the middle east.

President Bush (2003) –

“Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?”

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have had free elections and are on their way to democracy, albeit slowly and with a few bumps in the road….as our country had. But look towards Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen….

Can you tell me that President Bush’s doctrine didn’t play any part in moving towards this point? The same doctrine that was sneered at by the left as unrealistic and naive.

Rory Steele – 2004:

The fragile balance of race and religion, managed by rulers of Mesopotamia for centuries by repression, has been destroyed. The invaders did this in the name of democracy, a concept unaccepted to date in the Arab world and one that is totally unrealistic for Iraq.

Totally unrealistic that human beings would want to live free?

Well maybe it wasn’t until Obama gave his speech that the Middle East then decided that “hey…maybe freedom isn’t unrealistic!”

Yeaaaaah.