I am not in a position today to see/hear much of US broadcast media. I hope the following is not entirely redundant to every cable news headline blast. This afternoon as I expect every reader knows the President will give a much anticipated policy address on counter-terrorism. I will be surprised if he addresses the kind of counter-terrorism we saw demonstrated earlier today in the UK. There was a fierce collision at the intersection of despair, banality, barbarity, courage, competence and wisdom. If there is to be victory in the war against terror, it is more likely to emerge from what the women of Woolwich have shown us than 10,000 drones. A long cut-and-paste from The Telegraph follows.
The big story this afternoon is the formal admission by the Obama administration, via a letter to Congress from Attorney General Eric Holder, that it has killed four American citizens in drone strikes. Thats a interesting sign of the pressure Obama is under to be more transparent about his targeted killing operations in the fight against al Qaeda. But the information itself is not surprising: it has long been known that Obama approved the killing of the al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, and that other Americans (including Awlakis teenage son) have been killed inadvertentlyalthough one of the deaths, Jude Kennan Mohammad, had not previously been reported.
Perhaps more significant, however, is something Holders letter mentions only briefly in its second to last paragraph: The Attorney General writes that Obama has approved a policy document that institutionalizes the Administrations exacting standards and processes for reviewing and approving operations to capture or use lethal force against terrorist targets. This appears to be the disposition matrix that Obama officials, led by former counterterrorism advisor (and now CIA director) John Brennan, spent much of last year assembling. Casually referred to as the drone playbook, the document reportedly aspired to clear up questions such as who should pull the trigger on drone strikessome are conducted by the Pentagon, some by the CIAand just what legal authorities and restrictions apply to them. It may codify a reported shift of some drone activity from the CIA to the Defense Department.
So while the deaths of Americans by droneincluding the targeting of Awlakiarent really news, the implementation of a formal new policy guiding Obamas targeted killing against suspected al Qaeda terrorists is a big deal. But the veil of secrecy is not being lifted entirely. Holder writes that the new policy document will remain classified, although relevant congressional committees will be briefed on its contents. We may hear more about it, in broad unclassified terms, when President Obama gives a big speech on his counterterrorism policies.
#1
At this point, how could anyone believe anything this person says. If he told me the sun rises in the east, I would be out at dawn with a Theodolite and a compass, to verify.
What does a murderous jihadist terrorist have to do to get some recognition for his cause? You hack a British soldier to death in broad daylight on a London street while shouting Allahu akbar and then swear by the almighty Allah that youll never stop fighting, and the U.S. broadcast networks still cant bring themselves to utter a word about Islam.
True, the ABC CBS and NBC evening broadcasts called the attack terrorism, but for all the information they gave viewers, the attackers might have been Basque separatists or animal rights zealots.
On Nightly News NBC anchor Brian Williams said the attackers allowed people to take video while they vent their message about religion and politics. Correspondent Michelle Kosinski said one of the attackers made a long political statement, weapons still in his blood-covered hands.
CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley went a bit further, as reporter Charlie DAgata mentioned that Witnesses said that the men shouted god is great in Arabic during the attacks. Hmmm. Presbyterians maybe?
Over at ABC, on World News with Diane Sawyer, reporter Lama Hasan would only say British authorities were trying to find out including whether or not one of [the attackers] is of African origin with ties to terrorist groups. Of the one attackers video rant, Dian Sawyer said, officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are studying the meaning of this tape. Yes, its a real head-scratcher.
By contrast, the U.K. media seems to be calling the attacks what they are. The BBC (no right-wing media shop) reported that one of the attackers told a witness, I killed him because he kills Muslims over there and I am fed up that people kill Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. The BBC also said that The Muslim Council of Britain said the murder was a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly, and noted that At least two plots by Islamist extremists to kill soldiers in the UK have been foiled in recent years.
This morning, the networks did identify radical Islam as the attackers' motivation, but their initial reluctance in the face of obvious evidence fits a pattern, as when they wouldn't call Hamas terrorists while Hamas was making terrorist attacks on Israel.
#3
They don't need to say it. Everyone knows it is Islamists. Its like a corrupt politician. Everyone knows its a (D) so the news dorsnt say except the few times its an (R).
The early indications point to both sets of killers being second generation immigrants, who either through their social networks or online media came to militant Al Qaeda-style Islam later in life
[Washington Post] This administration's management of the Obama Internal Revenue Service scandal so far consists of a slow-walking, rolling disclosure of facts; equal parts equivocation, amnesia and indignation from IRS witnesses; deer-in-the-headlights non-responses by the White House press secretary; parsed, lawyerly statements from the president himself; and now one of the central key players is taking the Fifth. And all this comes from what the president claimed would be the "most transparent administration ever..."
If we give the president the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows the truth is going to come out, the question remains: Does the administration appoint the special prosecutor sooner or later? The calculus inside the White House is how to best protect the president's political interests. They have two options. They could delay the appointment and let more of the story develop, weather the ugly piecemeal disclosures, give the players time to get their stories straight and lawyer-up and hope Republicans continue their overreach, giving the whole affair a nutty partisan patina. Or, they could accelerate the appointment of a special prosecutor, thereby slowing the congressional inquiries and giving Jay Carney some relief from his daily embarrassing routine by supplying him with the escape hatch of not being allowed to comment on matters associated with the special prosecutor's ongoing investigation. Not to mention, the White House all the while could blast the appointed counsel as a partisan ideologue à la the hatchet job that was done on Ken Starr.
Anyway, if the president is innocent, he will end up needing and wanting a special prosecutor sooner rather than later. If he and his White House already have too much to hide, then they must clam up, cry partisanship and hope their allies on the Hill and in the media have the stamina for the long, hard slog ahead.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/23/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I thought the special prosecutor law expired a while back, Or am I confused?
I keep hearing this kind of crap and am never sure exactly what this overreach is. Is it the same as the "overreach" in trying to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi before, during and after the attack?
It seems every time a question is asked that makes the Obamanation regime squirm the media immediately claims it is "Republican overreach".
Is there a glimmer of real cause for optimism left? If so, I can't see it.
#4
A Special Prosecutor would be a mistake until the political machinations are exposed and dredged to the surface. It would make it seem like a few "rogue" mid-level bureaucrats were doing this without direction from above
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/23/2013 11:09 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
