Bin Laden Thugs Out

Another year, another bin Laden tape, another set of people wondering why this guy is still at large eight years after 9-11. Here's a translation, showing that the Al Qaeda leader is relying far more heavily on anti-Israel rhetoric, the Muslim extremist go-to, than ever before. This was not the case in prior bin Laden messages, and reflects not a little desperation on his part, suggesting that his other targets for demonization - America, godless Western culture, etc. - do not have the same traction. If Barack Obama manages to wage peace in the Middle East, bin Laden will see his rhetorical supply lines cut off almost completely. It's also interesting that he cannot take on Obama directly, but argues that he is captive to "pressure groups," probably because Obama is too popular in the Muslim world to attack to that degree.

Have we yet seen a conservative argue that bin Laden's takes on Jimmy Carter's statements about apartheid in Palestine, Mearshimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby, antiwar generals, and corporate and neoconservative control of the White House means that he's a closet liberal and presenting a Michael Moore position paper? Are they still taking a pathological extremist's word's literally?

Meanwhile, the best response to this has been Spencer Ackerman's auto-tuning. Because mockery makes sense, in this case. Death of bin Ladotune, moment of silence.

Eye Off The Ball

I've heard for seven years that George W. Bush had the chance to capture Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the mountains of Tora Bora, and we pulled out to focus on the invasion of Iraq. John Kerry ran on that point. Barack Obama ran on it. The whole idea was that Iraq was the bad, unnecessary war, and Afghanistan was the good war, and we needed to move our focus back on Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda was, to disrupt their safe havens.

Turns out the commander in Afghanistan thinks we have focused too much on Al Qaeda in the war ostensibly designed to dismantle al Qaeda.

U.S. military leaders have concluded that their war effort in Afghanistan has been too focused on hunting Al Qaeda, and have begun to shift Predator drone aircraft to the fight against the Taliban and other militants in order to prevent the country from slipping deeper into anarchy.

The move, described by government and Defense Department officials, represents a major change in the military's use of one of its most precious intelligence assets. It also illustrates the hard choices that must be made because the drones are in short supply [...]

"We have been overly counter-terrorism-focused and not counter-insurgency-focused," said one U.S. official.

Senior government officials said Bin Laden remained a prime target but that they needed to focus on fighting the Taliban.

"We might still be too focused on Bin Laden," the official said. "We should probably reassess our priorities."

I think the proper response is that we've been counter-terrorism-focused because OUR MISSION IS SUPPOSED TO BE COUNTER-TERRORISM. Or at least it was, until the new Pentagon kewl kids decided you could hug the ones you bomb and make them love you.

Without consultation with the country, the military completely transferred the mission in Afghanistan. They are less concerned with dismantling Al Qaeda and more concerned with a counter-insurgency bank shot. Gen. McChrystal, a real white-whale chaser, described his strategy in the Washington Post today. And surprise, it'll take more personnel.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is preparing a new strategy that calls for major changes in the way U.S. and other NATO troops there operate, a vast increase in the size of Afghan security forces and an intensified military effort to root out corruption among local government officials, according to several people familiar with the contents of an assessment report that outlines his approach to the war.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who took charge of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan last month, appears inclined to request an increase in American troops to implement the new strategy, which aims to use more unconventional methods to combat the growing Taliban insurgency, according to members of an advisory group he convened to work on the assessment. Such a request could receive a chilly reception at the White House, where some members of President Obama's national security team have expressed reluctance about authorizing any more deployments.

Senior military officials said McChrystal is waiting for a recommendation from a team of military planners in Kabul before reaching a final decision on a troop request. Several members of the advisory group, who spoke about the issue of force levels on the condition of anonymity, said that they think more U.S. troops are needed but that it was not clear how large an increase McChrystal would seek.

"There was a very broad consensus on the part of the assessment team that the effort is under-resourced and will require additional resources to get the job done," a senior military official in Kabul said.

This is flat-out mission creep. We entered Afghanistan to deny a staging ground for attacks against America. And now we're there to nation-build. One isn't necessarily unrelated to the other, but we're admittedly nation-building only in the areas where the Taliban isn't already dug in, meaning we are allowing various safe havens and staging grounds. To the extent that we're trying to split the Taliban, counter-insurgency methods have their role; but this sounds really more advanced than that. Spencer writes:

But there's a big difference between that and a counterinsurgency strategy for a nation-building objective, and a still greater one between that and a counterinsurgency strategy for a prophylactic objective. The American people have never approved sending 68,000 troops to suffer for Hamid Karzai, and certainly never approved sending them to keep Pakistan from falling to the Taliban. (Which, by the way, seems like a distinctly unrealistic scenario, especially now that the Pakistani military moved into Swat. The Taliban-led insurgency is a threat to Pakistan. It's not going to rule the country. Westerners have a tendency of predicting the imminent fall of Pakistan every five years or so.)

Perhaps I'm misreading what it is the people around McChrystal are saying, but it seems fair to say that the balance of evidence favors an interpretation that Afghanistan strategy is coming unmoored from the actual objectives of the war, and the actual interests at stake, and the White House is being either deluded or outright dishonest about what's happening. "Our goal is to deal with the terrorist elements that are in that country and are making life for Afghans and potentially life for millions throughout the world more dangerous through their activities," Robert Gibbs said from the White House podium today. That is simply not what's coming from McChrystal's circle.

The White House either has to rein in this effort, or own it. And if they own it, they must explain their deception to the public, and why the policy became hijacked by a clique in the Pentagon.

Does Not Want

I'm guessing that on the list of endorsements, you'd put this one near the bottom.

Al-Qaeda is watching the U.S. stock market's downward slide with something akin to jubilation, with its leaders hailing the financial crisis as a vindication of its strategy of crippling America's economy through endless, costly foreign wars against Islamist insurgents.

And at least some of its supporters think Sen. John McCain is the presidential candidate best suited to continue that trend.

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush.

McCain will not be buying a half-hour block of time for Al Qaeda to express their opinion, I'm guessing.

I'm sure the wingnuts will come up with some kind of reverse psychology to explain this ("They're saying they support McCain to help Obama!"), but of course these weren't public communications. And it's well established that George Bush has been a great boon to Al Qaeda's efforts on a variety of fronts, not the least of which is draining the public treasury through failed wars, crony capitalism and deregulation.

Boy, the McCain campaign REALLY wanted to change the subject on this today.

Jim Woolsey, the former CIA director who publicly connected Iraq to the 9/11 attacks without any evidence in 2001, and senior foreign-policy adviser Randy Scheunemann spent more time whining about the Washington Post’s standards of fairness than on the logic of why Al Qaeda might prefer Sen. John McCain. “An amazing piece of journalism, and I use journalism in quotation marks,” Scheunemann said, going on to list barely approving quotes of Sen. Barack Obama from Hamas, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, which he said he wasn’t going “to characterize.” Woolsey, for his part, peered into the mind of what he called “one individual Islamist blogger from one terrorist Islamist blog” and determined that he was “clearly trying to damage John McCain” and “not speaking from his heart.”

What was absent from the call, oddly enough, was any discussion about why Al Qaeda might want McCain to win. And there the case is simple enough. Al Qaeda prefers an indefinite U.S. occupation of Iraq and a bellicose U.S. all across the Muslim world to radicalize Muslims to its terrorist cause and drain the U.S. of its financial wealth — what Osama bin Laden calls his “bleed to bankruptcy” strategy. Hence, the reason why, as the CIA eventually concluded, Bin Laden tried to help George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004 by releasing a late-October tape. McCain pledges basic continuity with Bush on the Iraq war. As Scheunemann put it, “John McCain will spend what it takes to win.”

If Al Qaeda wanted to influence the US elections this year (though I don't think they'd be as successful), I think this just pre-empted it. And after four additional years of Bush thanks in part to that bin Laden tape, maybe the public would finally reject the idea that what a terrorist says has any bearing on the choice of our leaders.

McCain and 9/11

Another year has passed, another memorial to the victims of the September 11 attacks has been set, more wreaths have been laid, and Osama bin Laden is still at large.

Let's take a look at John McCain's relationship to this, shall we? On the morning of 9/11, he listed a host of countries that would have to pay for the attacks, including Iraq:

To be honest with you, Dan, I never thought that an operation of this sophistication and size would take place. I just never did. But I don’t think there’s any doubt that there are countries — Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea and others — who we know engage in proliferation of — of capabilities and, from time to time, involve themselves in state-sponsored terrorism. But never did we imagine on a scale such as this.

He said Iraq was "obviously" next to Paula Zahn on October 9, 2001.

He was simply in a rush to get to Iraq, just like this President and this Administration. Now that Iraq has been proven beyond all doubt to have nothing to do with 9/11, and the occupation itself has been a disaster (more on that later), only NOW has McCain turned back to bin Laden, making the most selfish statement that a national politician has maybe ever made.

Keith Olbermann raised a brilliant point tonight. John McCain bragged in June that he, and only he, knows how to capture Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for killing 3,000 people on September 11. Pray tell, how Senator?

As Keith notes, it's been several months now and John McCain is still keeping his little secret. Is McCain planning on blackmailing the country, Olbermann asks - he won't tell us unless he wins? I can imagine some in the media will say "pshaw, we know what McCain meant." No we don't. McCain was happy to invoke September 11 for his own political purposes in June, and just last week at his own convention John McCain was happy to force the nation to witness again the horrific spectacle of planes flying into the World Trade Center and the towers falling. For some reason, John McCain thought showing that video, up until then taboo at a political event, was now fair game. John McCain told the country three months ago that he and only he - not Barack Obama, but John McCain - had the secret to how to capture Osama bin Laden. But apparently he's keeping the secret a secret.

Somehow the war on terror is supposed to be a "plus" for Republicans. The facts, of course, are that we invaded Afghanistan and then neglected the country to such a degree that even the Pentagon agrees that the current strategy is not working, and we're running out of time for our efforts to be anything but counterproductive. Not only is our coalition dissolving in Iraq, but the Canadians are bugging out of Afghanistan, leaving us practically alone in these money pits and sinkholes which are failing to make the country any safer. The President is only know authorizing raids inside Pakistan, but it's a clear end-of-the-term, election-year ploy to make a big headline splash, at the expense of angering a brand new Pakistani government.

(of course, Obama is talking about falling into these same traps. I don't argue for isolationism, but an understanding that, as Admiral Mullen said yesterday, "we cannot kill our way out of the problem." Ending terrorist threats require local law enforcement and lifting societies out of poverty as much as bombs and guns.)

The truth is that John McCain, a dishonorable man, has shown that he does not have the judgment and temperament to deal with the threats we face in a measured and realistic way. In fact, it's clear that he would fly off the handle and run the globe red with blood at the slightest provocation.

UPDATE: Michael Smerconish, who I couldn't stand when I lived in Philly but has also come around as a more sensible conservative, addresses this subject today as well.

You Don't Expect Us To Do Our Job, Do You?

It's really quite an incredible statement.

The White House said Wednesday that the failure to capture Osama bin Laden in the seven years since the Sept. 11 attacks shows the limitations of military and intelligence power.

"This is not the movies. We don't have super powers," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "But what we do have is very dedicated people who are working with our allies and trying to bring (al-Qaida leaders) to justice."

First of all, this is the BUSH White House saying that there are limits to military power, the guys who unleashed Shock and Awe, the guys who invaded unilterally, the belligerent, arrogant hotheads who are always willing to threaten force against anyone at any time. There are apparently limits to intelligence, too, this coming from the ones who would toss aside privacy, civil liberties protections, the Fourth Amendment and both domestic and international laws and treaties against torture, in the name of gathering intelligence.

Then they claim it's not the movies. They can't just stride in like cowboys and say "Wanted, Dead or Alive" and dress up in a fighting costume and take out the bad guys, you know?



Finally, they say they don't have super powers, they can't snap their fingers to bring bin Laden to justice, it's a long slog that requires lots of effort.

This is of course why all the effort put into going into Afghanistan and trapping bin Laden and his counterparts in the Tora Bore Mountains was called off, because it was going too well, I guess, and everyone knows these things take time:

When [did you become] ... aware that Iraq was topic A or B inside the foreign policy side of this administration?

I became aware of the significance of Iraq in February of 2002, when I was told that this administration had made the decision to begin to de-emphasize Afghanistan in order to get ready for Iraq, and that it wasn't just a theoretical decision; it was an operational decision that resulted in personnel and assets which had been important in the early phases of the Afghanistan war being redeployed to the disadvantage of victory in Afghanistan. ...

They must have known at that time that both philosophically and at a personal level, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were adversaries. The idea that they had collaborated in 9/11 was absurd.

How did you hear about it, that they were headed in this direction in February of 2002?

Well, I heard about it during a briefing at Central Command [CENTCOM], which is located in Tampa, Fla., on the Afghanistan war. The briefing was very positive. Things were going well; victory appeared to be close at hand. Then I was told in a private meeting that no, that wasn't the case; that in fact, we were beginning to recede from the war in Afghanistan precisely to get ready for Iraq.

Who told you?

Gen. Tommy Franks.

Take me into the meeting. What's happening? ...

The general said, "Senator, I would like to speak with you privately." We went into his room, and he proceeded to tell me that they weren't fighting a war in Afghanistan; that they were, in fact, beginning to redeploy assets. He particularly mentioned special operations personnel and the Predator unmanned aircraft as examples of assets that were being redeployed from Afghanistan to get ready for Iraq.

He then laid out what he thought the strategy should be for victory in the war on terror: Finish the job in Afghanistan; move to other areas that had large numbers of cells of Al Qaeda -- Somalia, Yemen being number one and number two. He went on to say that Iraq was a special case, that our intelligence there was very poor, and that the Europeans knew more about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction than we did.

But they don't have super-powers, OK?

Now, in recent weeks the commando raids and drone attacks at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border have increased, and clearly there's an effort to make an October Surprise out of this very issue. So all this could be an expectations game. But Perino is right, in one respect. It IS very hard to capture Al Qaeda leaders when you de-emphasize their capture for 6 years to go on a happy hunting trip in Iraq. So reversing that all in a matter of a couple months is not entirely likely.

See also the fact that we are a rapidly deteriorating state with reduced influence in the world as our bloated military becomes increasingly irrelevant. The problem is that Republicans and neocons associate weapons with super powers, and their ineffectiveness at targeting terrorists with them is becoming clear. Perino didn't know how much truth she was offering.

People vs. The Powerful: Is It Enough?

From a messaging standpoint, since I've been talking a lot about field, I think Barack Obama's going to come through the Democratic convention as a full-throated populist, much like Al Gore did in 2000. That was when Gore's numbers shot up, and Obama's advisors clearly see that as the antidote to their recent difficulties. They're already doing it:

Democrat Barack Obama pledged Wednesday to create millions of union jobs in alternative energy and to end tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas, using tough new populist language to persuade voters that he, not rival John McCain, is best positioned to lift the limping U.S. economy [...]

With Mark Warner, the former Virginia governor now running for Senate, at his side, Obama said it was wrong that the Iraqi government has been sitting on billions of dollars in oil revenue while the U.S. spends billions to rebuild the war-torn country.

"We should be using some of that money to rebuild Virginia, laying roads, building broadband lines and putting people back to work," Obama said.

As for tax breaks to companies taking jobs overseas, Obama said: "We sure as heck don't have to give them incentives to move. ... We should give companies tax breaks that are right here."

Obama made an appeal for votes that sounded much like the closing pitch Clinton would offer in similar settings.

"If you give me that opportunity, if you give me that chance, I will fight for you every single day," he pledged. "I'll wake up every day in that White House thinking about those people in Martinsville."

Let the Hillary for VP speculation begin...

This is a very obvious bet, which may work as well as it did for Gore in 2000. Obama is already doing this off the radar with ads about the economy in battleground states that show McCain as out of touch.

In Philadelphia; East Lansing, Mich.; Green Bay, Wis.; and at least five other major cities, Mr. Obama is heavily showing an advertisement contrasting a statement by Mr. McCain that “we have had a pretty good, prosperous time with low unemployment,” with appearances by people making statements like, “The prices of gas are up; the prices of milk are up.”

Mr. McCain’s statement was from a debate in January, before the economy took several turns for the worse, and did not include the senator’s acknowledgment of “a rough patch.” Mr. McCain has since run an advertisement going so far as to say, “We’re worse off than we were four years ago.”

In Des Moines; Tampa, Fla.; Paducah, Ky., and at least 10 other cities, Mr. Obama is running a spot for a mock book, “Economics” by John McCain: “Support George Bush 95 percent of the time; keep spending $10 billion a month for the war in Iraq.”

On Sunday alone, Mr. Obama’s campaign spent nearly $400,000 to run those two spots more than 600 times, accounting for roughly two thirds of the commercials he ran that day, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

I'm sure we'll see a local ad in Colorado, too, about McCain's historic mistake over calling for a renegotiation of the Colorado River water compact, which to Coloradans means "we're coming to steal your water."

It's proven to work, and it's a Democratic year, and nobody really likes the direction of the country, either. However, McCain has crawled back into this race in two ways - he benefited from the Georgia crisis by acting all Presidential-like when Obama was on vacation, and he made a searing set of character attacks that he has largely been allowed to get away with. Obama has for the most part used "shame on you" tactics to criticize these attacks, always backed up with how he "honors McCain's service but not his policies or his politics," as he said today.

Well, Sen. Obama, McCain doesn't honor anything about you. He hates you and he wants his supporters to hate you, too. He can't win on ideas so he'll win on spite, scorn, the anger the Orthogonians feel that the snooty liberal elites are always looking down on them. It's astonishing that this is working after eight years of George Bush, but let's face facts.

Why do they work? Because we don't fight back. The appropriate response to someone questioning your patriotism isn't to say "you're wrong" or "I object!" The appropriate response is to punch the guy in the face, rhetorically or otherwise. Wesley Clark didn't even question John McCain's patriotism - he simply questioned McCain's qualifications for the presidency. McCain responded by punching Wesley Clark in the face, then dragged him around tied to the back of a truck for a week for good measure (and no one in the party came to Clark's defense, big surprise there). McCain didn't just say "stop it," McCain made sure that neither Clark nor anyone else would dare question his commander in chief credentials ever again.

What has our side done to bloody McCain for questioning our patriotism? What have we ever done to fight back when the Republicans question our patriotism, be it in the Congress or at the ballot box? How many times do we have to write about this Achilles Heel before Dems realize it ain't going away? We deal with this issue every election, and on every issue, because Democrats either don't have the balls to fight back, or they don't have the brains. Either way, it's pathetic, and make us looks weak (and unpatriotic). And it's happening again. And again. And again.

Meanwhile, the media covers for McCain by saying he never really wanted to run a divisive, cynical, spite-filled campaign, but he was forced into it. They're not going to help Obama out of this mess, and in fact they'll actively work against him. A lot of this "Obama doesn't fight back" stuff is built into standard media narrative. He actually is, in some ways, but the attacks from the Republican side are amplified.

Still, Obama isn't coming close to doing this (yes, I'm citing Cato), and he has defunded the outside groups who might do it:

At the “Civil Forum” at Saddleback Church in Orange County, California this weekend, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) repeated a favorite line of his about Osama bin Laden:

If I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. . . . No one should be allowed to take thousands of American, innocent American lives. Of course evil must be defeated . . . we are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century–radical Islamic extremists.

What a gift to the recruiting efforts of Al Qaeda! - to have an American presidential candidate declare himself a follower of Osama bin Laden. According to McCain, Bin Laden is so powerful that he poses a “transcendent” challenge to John McCain’s United States.

In his cogent, well-supported, and readable article, “What Terrorists Really Want,” Max Abrahms at UCLA argues that terrorists “are rational people who use terrorism primarily to develop strong affective ties with fellow terrorists.” Think of Al Qaeda as a gang that disaffected youth might join - something powerful to belong to that gives their lives meaning.

McCain’s “gates of hell” talk is leadership malpractice, and he should stop using it immediately. Calling the threat of terrorism “transcendent” is equal parts incoherent and false. Terrorism stands no chance of defeating the United States or the West unless we ourselves collapse the society. Speaking this way about terrorism thrills our terrorist enemies and draws recruits and support to them. Silence would be much better, presidential campaign or no.

Obviously the economy is a top issue, so going full-bore on that makes some sense. And I still believe in the power of the ground game, and I think that after the conventions this whole thing might recalibrate. But I think Steve Schmidt is getting the better of this Socratic dialogue, from where I'm standing. Obama is light-years ahead on organization and technology, but on message he's still pulling off the shelf the old Democratic tropes of years past. The Gore one was successful - but you have to also fight back on the character nonsense.

It Was Seven Years Ago Today...

Where were you when the President said "All right, you've covered your ass, now"?



We can never forget this stuff, nor can we ever forget the danger of electing anyone so disconnected with reality and controlled by outside forces... or in other words, the Republican nominee.

Hamdan Found Guilty

of material support of terrorism. Well, he was bin Laden's driver. That's fairly material support.

So ends a sorry chapter in American jurisprudence. Did that need to take seven years?

(Interestingly, found not guilty of conspiracy, not that he'd be allowed to leave Gitmo even if he was acquitted)

Osama Gets What Osama Wants

He had some help from the oilmen in the White House, but bin Laden's hope has come to pass:

In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden — the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free — listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans “have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims” by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.

Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 — a thirteen-fold increase.

Bin Laden's strategy didn't work, for the most part, in the Muslim world, where his goal of an Islamic caliphate is actually massively unpopular. His strategy with regards to America, to drain us economically while entangling us in protracted conflicts that destabilize the world, has been picture-perfect. By responding childishly and without reason instead of resolutely and with respect to the universal nature of the problem, understanding the importance of public diplomacy and global poverty, for example, we have given the world's top terrorist absolutely everything he has wanted. He has a new safe haven in Pakistan, the renewed ability to launch attacks and an opposing empire struggling with enormous structural problems. Oil isn't as high as it is solely because of bin Laden - rising demand in China and India is a far greater factor - but global instability absolutely inflates the price.

There will not be a new caliphate and women in Missouri forced to wear the hijab - that's paranoid crazy talk of the highest order. But there is no question that failed neoconservative policies - policies of which they are still incredibly proud - have weakened our security, our economic future and our global standing, and given a great victory to extremists. Heckuva job.

The Seven-Year Itch

June 2008 absolutely seems like a good time to start going after Osama bin Laden.

President George W Bush has enlisted British special forces in a final attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden before he leaves the White House.

Defence and intelligence sources in Washington and London confirmed that a renewed hunt was on for the leader of the September 11 attacks. “If he [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured Bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place,” said a US intelligence source.

This could have been something to do when, I don't know, he was pinned down in caves in the Tora Bora Mountains while W. had visions of shock and awe in Iraq dancing in his head. To do it now as purely a legacy maneuver seems, how can I say this, completely self-serving and weak.

Additionally, this becomes easier when you don't spend years torturing and beating innocent Afghanis and Pakistanis when you could have been seeking the actual target.

American soldiers herded the detainees into holding pens of razor-sharp concertina wire, the kind that's used to corral livestock.

The guards kicked, kneed and punched many of the men until they collapsed in pain. U.S. troops shackled and dragged other detainees to small isolation rooms, then hung them by their wrists from chains dangling from the wire mesh ceiling.

Former guards and detainees whom McClatchy interviewed said Bagram was a center of systematic brutality for at least 20 months, starting in late 2001. Yet the soldiers responsible have escaped serious punishment [...]

Nazar Chaman Gul, an Afghan who was held at Bagram for more than three months in 2003, said he was beaten about every five days. American soldiers would walk into the pen where he slept on the floor and ram their combat boots into his back and stomach, Gul said. "Two or three of them would come in suddenly, tie my hands and beat me," he said.

When the kicking started, Gul said, he'd cry out, "I am not a terrorist," then beg God for mercy. Mercy was slow in coming. He was shipped to Guantanamo around the late summer of 2003 and imprisoned there for more than three years.

According to Afghan officials and a review of his case, Gul wasn't a member of al Qaida or of the extremist Taliban regime that ran Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. At the time he was detained, he was working as a fuel depot guard for the U.S.-backed Afghan government.

This would tend to make the type of people you'd rely on in a mission to capture or kill bin Laden a tad more wary of you.

While it may be true that Al Qaeda as an organization is wearing out its welcome in the world, the best way to hasten that decline is to not torture innocent Muslim and occupy Muslim countries while letting the man that moderate Muslims view responsible for murdering thousands of Muslims in his own right to roam free. Our terror strategy is a failure, but fortunately so is Al Qaeda's. Still, Bush appears to be doing all he can to keep it relevant.

World Report

Actually, quite a few things have been brewing on the world stage over the past couple days, and so, you know, here they are:

• I've heard this Osama bin Laden is dead canard several times, but not from a Taliban commander in Pakistan. Of course, there's not really any accountability for this, and no telling whether or not it's true.

• Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister of Israel, may be bumped right out of the government after new allegations that he took over a hundred and fifty thousand dollars in bribes from an American businessman over fifteen years, much of which funded his personal lifestyle. Ehud Barak and others have called upon Olmert to resign. This could completely upset any hope for peace talks and change the complexion of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Major news, stay tuned.

• The Presidential candidates are saying all the right things on Darfur. One of the three isn't exactly trustworthy, but hopefully the next Presidency will reflect a change in policy.



• After an IAEA report criticizing Iranian behavior and potential concealment of their nuclear weapons program, the Iranians have threatened to limit their access even further, which was the whole point of the IAEA report. This threat came from Ali Larijani, the former top nuclear negotiator who is now the new Speaker of the Parliament, which is an odd place for a major critic of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if you believe that he's a dictator and not merely a functionary in a government ruled by the Supreme Leader. With any luck, Bush will leave in favor of Obama in January 2009, and Ahmadinejad, who is unpopular due to economic difficulties, will be voted out the same year, and we'll have a chance for a saner policy between both nations.

• Good news in Nepal, where the monarchy has been abolished, to a massive celebration in the world's most recent secular republic. Freedom is on the march - especially if you don't intervene in sovereign countries and demand it.

• Bad news elsewhere. Somalia is as close to a state of total anarchy as there is in the world, and when you add global economic recession and a world food crisis to that mix, you could have a total collapse with mass death. There's almost no hope there.

• There's been a spasm of violence against immigrants in South Africa, leading the government to consider refugee camps for those displaced by rioting. I hope this isn't a sign that global hate is on the rise.

• Oh, and there's Iraq. The Sunni bloc has suspended talks to re-enter the government, and Muqtada al-Sadr has very cannily called for the Iraqi people to vote on any security arrangement between Iraq and the United States, burnishing his carefully cultivated image as a nationalist man of the people.

That's a lot of stuff!

Last-Minute Ad Blogging

I think I'm with Kevin Drum on this one, the latest ad from Hillary Clinton shows a retrospective of American challenges over 60 years, bin Laden's in it for half a second, and we shouldn't be so afraid of that. Clinton is not associating Obama with bin Laden the way Gephardt associated Dean with bin Laden in 2004, she's saying that the next President has all kinds of challenges and she's better prepared to face them. You can accept or reject that categorical (I reject it), but it's not an off-limits argument.



In fact, in the fall I'd be happy for Democrats to use bin Laden imagery LIBERALLY in their ads, as part of the argument that the diversion of Iraq took us away from finishing the job when we had Al Qaeda on the run, and we've offered a policy of retreat from Al Qaeda ever since, and the terrorist group is stronger than ever with a safe haven in the FATA region in Pakistan. This "bin Laden/ooga booga" reflexivity from Democrats has to stop.

The Obama campaign's response to this ad reflects this to an extent, but then has that addition of whining about the "politics of fear," when in fact the first half of their statement is the right answer, and constantly raising the "politics of fear" angle has the impression of sour grapes.

"When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It's ironic that she would borrow the President's tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points. We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don't need another."

I would have left it at the first half, and even created an ad with exactly that script. It happens to be true.

(I do think this shows a concerted effort to reach undecideds on the part of the Clinton campaign, showing to me that the race in Pennsylvania is fairly close. Obama actually finally broke 45% in a poll overnight, and Survey USA moved this back to 6 points. The internals show that massive turnout in the Philly region could make this even closer. Obama is not predicting a win, which is pretty wily, and he's likely right. But I think he's done a good job of expectations management in what is a tough primary for him demographically.

Public Enemy #1

So Osama bin Laden is so concerned about Bush's war on terror and that relentless hunt for him that he has time to take a look at European cartoons and make value judgments on them.

Good thing he's on the run. I'm sure we'll smoke him out of his hole any day now.

Whatever Happened To "We Don't Torture"?

John Negroponte, the King of All Salvadoran Death Squads, spills the beans and says the obvious.

Negroponte: I get concerned that we're too retrospective and tend to look in the rearview mirror too often at things that happened four or even six years ago. We've taken steps to address the issue of interrogations, for instance, and waterboarding has not been used in years. It wasn't used when I was director of national intelligence, nor even for a few years before that. We've also taken significant steps to improve Guantanamo. People will tell you now that it is a world-class detention facility. But if you want to highlight and accent the negative, you can resurface these issues constantly to keep them alive. I would rather focus on what we need to do going forward.

It's an interesting new legal argument. Not guilty by reason of "yeah, we're guilty, but we fixed it!" I'll have to consult the Court to see if that holds.

By the way, if you want to know how to responsibly engage in interrogation, you can give this a read.

Piro says no coercive interrogation techniques, like sleep deprivation, heat, cold, loud noises, or water boarding were ever used. "It's against FBI policy, first. And wouldn't have really benefited us with someone like Saddam," Piro says.

Why not?

"I think Saddam clearly had demonstrated over his legacy that he would not respond to threats, to any type of fear-based approach," Piro explains.

"So how do you crack a guy like that?" Pelley asks.

"Time," Piro says.

(This interrogation eventually revealed that Saddam didn't have WMD, was wary of Osama bin Laden and viewed him as a threat. Clearly that was the WRONG kind of intelligence. Maybe they didn't do enough zip-bam Jack Bauer work on him so they got the wrong answers.)

Negroponte simply revealed what everyone already knew, and it's not like our country's been averse to coddling dictators and torturers for years. But there's something different in reading a public official say, in the most nonchalant matter possible, "Yeah, we tortured, so?" It's really wounding. It's one thing to know that your country has betrayed its supposed ideals. It's quite another to have that betrayal confirmed in the most putrid manner possible.

...I cross-posted this at Digby's, and to respect her position of neutrality I didn't add this. But in the aftermath of this confirmation of using a tactic that dates back to the Spanish Inquisition, it's instructive to take a look at this endorsement from 85 Guantanamo lawyers, for Barack Obama.

We are at a critical point in the Presidential campaign, and as lawyers who have been deeply involved in the Guantanamo litigation to preserve the important right to habeas corpus, we are writing to urge you to support Senator Obama.

The Administration's Guantanamo policies have undercut our values at home and stained our reputation around the world. All of us are lawyers who have worked on the Guantanamo habeas corpus litigation for many years, some of us since early 2002, and we were all deeply involved in opposing the Administration’s attempt to overturn the Supreme Court's Rasul decision by stripping the courts of jurisdiction to hear the Guantanamo cases. We have talked with Senator Obama about why the Guantanamo litigation is so significant, and we have worked closely with Senator Obama in the fight to preserve habeas corpus.

Some politicians are all talk and no action. But we know from first-hand experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated extraordinary leadership on this critical and controversial issue. When others stood back, Senator Obama helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Administration's efforts in the Fall of 2006 to strip the courts of jurisdiction, and when we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us. Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.

It's not that I think that Hillary Clinton somehow would not be committed to closing Guantanamo and reversing the evil practice of denying habeas corpus, but you can read something into the emphasis upon which these leading candidates place on it. These lawyers are a trusted source. And Obama clearly has a real concern about the denial of Constitutional rights and the slippery slope where that can lead.

Guess What? McCain's a Liar

Turns out St. John of the Straight Talk, the maverick from Arizona who will never compromise his ideals, is a politician.

Senator John McCain stepped up his attacks on his Republican rival Mitt Romney on Saturday, accusing him of once wanting to withdraw from Iraq and likening him to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in his approach to the conflict.

In response, Mr. Romney lashed back, saying Mr. McCain was being “dishonest,” and demanded that he apologize.

Mr. McCain’s comments marked the second straight day of going on the offensive against Mr. Romney, and they came as polls showed the two men locked in a tight race in Florida, where the Republican primary will be held Tuesday. […]

“If we surrender and wave a white flag like Senator Clinton wants to do and withdraw as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos,” Mr. McCain said to reporters in Fort Myers on Saturday morning.

At a town-hall-style meeting later in Sun City Center, a retirement community, Mr. McCain reiterated his accusation. “My friends, I was there — he said he wanted a timetable for withdrawal,” Mr. McCain said.

Romney has wanted a lot of contrary things, and has taken a lot of contrary positions, but he has never, ever, wanted a timetable for withdrawal.

I'm also wondering how the myth of "straight talk" squares with the farcical old man peddling a secret plan to capture bin Laden.

So Washington Wire was wondering, what does McCain know that President Bush and the Pentagon don’t about how to sweep up America’s most elusive enemy.

“One thing I will not do is telegraph my punches. Osama bin Laden will be the last to know,” he said today while riding on the back of his bus between Florida events. In other words: he’s not telling. Why not share his strategy with the current occupant of the White House? “Because I have my own ideas and it would require implementation of certain policies and procedures that only as the president of the United States can be taken.”

That response, of course, echoes Richard Nixon’s campaign promise in 1968 to stop the Vietnam War. Nixon also declined to say what his plan was. America’s involvement in the Vietnam war continued until 1973.

So, to recap: when McCain's talking straight, he warns that there will be other wars (especially if he has anything to do with it). When he's saying practically anything else, he's not talking straight.

Busharraf

Dick Cheney's man in Islamabad on Benazir Bhutto's death:

The night of the assassination, Musharraf believes Bhutto broke a basic rule of security in a crowded charged political rally: to be particularly careful when leaving.

"She should have just gone and moved fast, gone and waved, yes. But if you're standing and -- because you are vulnerable. You're vulnerable and people are charging," Musharraf says. "And all the film that you see, people are charging. Now, when people are there by the hundreds swarming around you, this man is one of them. Who can check these people at that stage?"

"And the mistake she made, if I understand you correctly, was stopping?" Logan asks.

"Yes. But then the mistake was not that," Musharraf says. "I mean, God was kind -- she went into the car in spite of the fact that she was waving and all that. She did go into the car. Now is the point. Why did she stand outside the car?"

"Why did she stand up in the hatch?" Logan asks.

"Entirely. Who's to blame?" Musharraf replies.

Asked who is to blame, Musharraf says, "Only she."

"So Benazir Bhutto, in your words, should bear some responsibility for what took place for her own death?" Logan asks.

"For standing up outside the car, I think it was she to blame alone. Nobody else. Responsibility is hers," Musharraf says.

"Don't you think it will make her supporters crazy to hear you say that?" Logan asks.

"Well, I don't think so. I mean, that's the fact. She shouldn't have stood up," Musharraf says.

It's all her fault, I guess, for getting in the way of that gunman's bullet and that bomb. She clearly didn't listen to her betters.

Why does this remind me of nothing so much as this?

In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' "

"What was her answer?" I wonder.

"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."

Man, do these authoritarians have a lot in common. I guess this is why we just sent Pakistan 18 new F-16s.

Also, in addition to the coldness and the cruelty, neither of them can find Osama bin Laden.

(By the way, don't be surprised if Fourthbranch takes advantage of the chaos to get the CIA into Waziristan. I don't know if this is because of legacy or a 2008 strategy or what, but it's about 7 years too late.)

Playing Out The String

The bottom line of this article is that there will be 100,000 or more troops in Iraq on Election Day 2008, there will still be a moral tragedy of a prison at Guantanamo, Osama bin Laden will still be at large, Iraq will still be a breeding ground for lawless contractors who allow their employees to rape and imprison, the fundamental problems of Sunni/Shiite distrust and a lack of a political solution will persist, and all of these messes will be dumped on the next President. In that sense, Robert Gates is doing exactly the job he's been asked to do by the President. Mukasey too.

UPDATE: Just let me flesh out this link a little more. Abdulaziz al-Hakim is saying that the neighborhood patrols set up as part of the "Anbar Awakening" must be under federal control. This is the last thing the Sunni former insurgents in those patrols want. The key quote is when Hakim says “Weapons should only be in the hands of the government.” Keep in mind that this is supposed to be the tangible success of the surge. It's actually heading inexorably toward confrontation. Also in the article is a UNICEF report that two million Iraqi children have suffered from "humanitarian ills" in 2007, with 60% unable to access potable water. Also there's an imminent battle for northern Iraq that'll explode at any time, with open pledges of violence by both Kurds and Sunnis. The middle of next year, in the heart of election season, could be a nightmare.

I Don't Think We Can Take Much More Victory

In other news today, the Iraq war's over. I mean, the Bush Administration has constantly defined the war in Iraq as a war against Al Qaeda in Iraq, which incidentally is but a tiny fraction of the overall source of the violence over there, so if they've been "defeated," can we bring our men and women home now?

The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.

Sounds good, pack up the battleships, last one one is a rotten e-

But as the White House and its military commanders plan the next phase of the war, other officials have cautioned against taking what they see as a premature step that could create strategic and political difficulties for the United States. Such a declaration could fuel criticism that the Iraq conflict has become a civil war in which U.S. combat forces should not be involved. At the same time, the intelligence community, and some in the military itself, worry about underestimating an enemy that has shown great resilience in the past.

Premature step? When has this government ever been so hungry to declare victory that they did so prematurely?

Today’s Washington Post reports that some military generals are advocating a “declaration of victory” over al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). A military intelligence official tells the Post that Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is the leading voice in calling for such a declaration [...]

McChrystal happens to also be one of the military generals who also fiercely advocated the declaration of “Mission Accomplished.” In April 2003, McChrystal assessed that “major combat” was over in Iraq:

“I would anticipate that the major combat engagements are over,” Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal told reporters at a Pentagon briefing. He said U.S. forces are moving into a phase of “smaller, albeit sharper fights.”

St. Petraeus and Admiral Fallon, by the way, both don't want to go the "last throes" route either. But the Administration is desperate for a victory, so they propagate the myth.

And this is indicative of their entire "war on terror" strategy. They want to hype threats when the goal is to rally the public in favor of an attack, then dismiss the same threats when they get bored and want to go attack something else. Peter Bergen, who's forgotten more about terrorism than George Bush and his pals have ever known, has an article in The New Republic that plows over the famliar ground of how bin Laden has managed to remain public enemy number 1 for six years and still survive. The truth is we had our boots on the collective necks of Al Qaeda and relaxed.

When Omar fled the Al Qaeda training camps, the organization was in disarray. A 2002 letter written by an Al Qaeda member--and addressed to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational commander of the September 11 attacks--gives a sense of just how demoralized the group was:

"Consider all the fatal and successive disasters that have afflicted us during a period of no more than six months. Those observing our affairs wonder what has happened to us. Today we are experiencing one setback after another and have gone from misfortune to disaster. ... I say today we must completely halt all external actions until we sit down and consider the disaster we caused. The East Asia, Europe, America, Horn of Africa, Yemen, Gulf, and Morocco [terrorist] groups have fallen, and Pakistan has almost been drowned in one push." [...]

But that was five very long years ago--five years during which Al Qaeda has not only survived but also managed to rebuild at an astonishing clip. The group's leadership has reconstituted itself and now operates rather comfortably along the largely lawless Afghan-Pakistan border. Last year, it came close to downing ten U.S. airplanes using liquid explosives--an attack that would have rivaled September 11 in magnitude. Al Qaeda has continually massacred Iraqi civilians over the past three years and has managed to keep the country locked in the grip of sectarian violence. Swathes of Afghanistan are in danger of reverting to Islamist control. The largest Algerian terrorist group announced last year that it was putting itself under Al Qaeda's umbrella--and has subsequently launched a series of attacks in North Africa against Western targets. Britain's domestic intelligence chief said last November that 30 terrorist plots were underway in her country--some of which would involve "mass-casualty suicide attacks"--and that Al Qaeda's Pakistan-based leadership was giving direction to its British followers "on an extensive and growing scale." Last month, Al Qaedalinked militants who had trained at camps in Pakistan were arrested in Germany, where a prosecutor said they had acquired enough chemicals for what would have been "massive bomb attacks" targeting Americans in the country. In a small but telling sign of its restored confidence, Al Qaeda's production arm has cranked out a record number of videos and audiotapes this year. To top things off, according to Hoffman, the group's "determination to strike the United States from abroad again remains undiminished." And it may be getting closer to doing just that: A recent National Intelligence Estimate noted that Al Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability."

America's most formidable foe--once practically dead-- is back. This is one of the most historically significant legacies of President Bush. At nearly every turn, he has made the wrong strategic choices in battling Al Qaeda. To understand the terror network's resurgence--and its continued ability to harm us--we need to reexamine all the ways in which the administration has failed to crush it.

It's a must-read article that lays bare all of the crude assumptions made by the commentariat about the perceived strength of the Republican Daddy Party in combating terrorism. In actuality, their decision-making has always been fatally flawed. And they've walked into the same trap in Iraq.

Why Are We Outsourcing Intelligence Activities?

The story in today's Washington Post, that self-interested leakers inside the White House just compromised a major Al-Qaeda intelligence asset, is bad news. But let's look at it a bit further (emphasis mine):

A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.

Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.

The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network.

"Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," said Rita Katz, the firm's 44-year-old founder, who has garnered wide attention by publicizing statements and videos from extremist chat rooms and Web sites, while attracting controversy over the secrecy of SITE's methodology. Her firm provides intelligence about terrorist groups to a wide range of paying clients, including private firms and military and intelligence agencies from the United States and several other countries.

This information was disclosed at precisely the time when the Man Called Petraeus was readying his testimony on Capitol Hill, and putting a scary scary bin Laden video out there, to them, properly colored the clash to come. So this was leaked for political purposes, and it certainly compromised an asset.

But the question is, why exactly is this little private intelligence startup getting more information than the federalized, tax-funded intelligence agencies? I remember reading an article about Rita Katz and SITE in the New Yorker abut a year ago. She's a bit unstable, but she's managed to do a lot better, by virtue of sitting on her computer, than the combined forces of the US government. That's frightening.

Here's Buzzflash's take, via email:

Okay, This Group Called "SITE" is Allegedly Finding Stuff Out About Al-Qaeda Before the Bush Administration, Such as the Alleged Latest Osama Tape with the Photo-Shopped Beard. Now, the Woman Who Runs It -- Who Allegedly is Paid a Large Consulting Fee by The White House -- is Accusing the Bush Administration of Destroying Her "Sources" for Finding Out Things About the "Terrorists" That the Bush Administration Doesn't Know. So, She Goes to the Washington Post Complaining that the Bush Administration is Undercutting the War on Terrorism, In Essence, by Leaking the Alleged Osama Tape Too Early After She Sent it To Them. Our Question is Why is this Small Private Organization Called "SITE" Allegedly Beating Our Intelligence Agencies to Information About Osama? Why Isn't the CIA The WH Source? Uh, This is Mind Boggling. And She Regularly Appears to be Supplying the Busheviks with "Secret" Information. This is THE Story that the WP Should be Investigating, Not Her Strange Whining to Them. What the Heck is "SITE" Doing Being Several Steps Ahead of the Combined Department of Homeland Security Intelligence Operation? Or are They Just a WH Propaganda Plant? A Very Strange Story Indeed.

It is strange, and it's missing a lot of elements. Is the Bush Administration paying to outsource intelligence to some lady in Jersey? Is that being done to evade proper oversight? What the hell is going on?

Most Dangerous Trouble Spot In The World Update

Bin laden has declared war on Musharraf:

The 23-minute 37-second audio message -- titled "Come to Jihad: A Speech to the People of Pakistan" -- is recorded over a montage of old video, and begins with bin Laden reciting prayers and citations from the Quran in Arabic. The audio fades down, then a narrator translates bin Laden's message into Pashto. The tape is subtitled in English, and an Arabic transcript was released.

Terrorism analyst Laura Mansfield told CNN that while the message is directed at the Pakistani people, "the simultaneous release of transcripts in English, Pashto, and Arabic indicate the terror group is looking at a wider audience, including the English-speaking world."

The only time reference in bin Laden's message is to the July siege of Islamabad's Red Mosque -- a week-long standoff between Pakistani security forces and Islamic extremists who hoped to establish a Taliban-style rule across the capital. More than 100 people, including militant leader Abdul Rashid Ghazi, died when troops stormed the mosque compound.

Mansfield noted that the bulk of bin Laden's message "builds a [legal] case under Islamic sharia [law] justifying why Muslims in Pakistan should take up arms against" Musharraf.

Which is a false case, of course.

Pakistan is actually at a crossroads right now. They can become a new democracy with a more functional government, or Musharraf can tighten the reins and give an opening to Islamic extremists. That Bin Laden is attacking Musharraf can be an opening here, although Bin Laden is actually more popular than Musharraf in the country, and far more popular than Bush (of course, that's mainly because pro-democracy forces don't like Musharraf). Al Qaeda is playing a game of inches with a long time horizon, and they can agitate against Musharraf while waiting to see how things play out. The question is, will this lead to more vigilant efforts against terrorism by the Pakistani government, or an accomodation?

UPDATE: Pakistan will hold its Presidential election October 6. Benazir Bhutto, seeking to become Prime Minister, won't even get in the country until October 17 to contest parliamentary elections sometime in December.