International news

News flash: Pakistanis knew bin Laden was among 'em?

This must rank as perhaps the least-surprising item to come out of the Global War on Terror.

Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus likely knew Osama bin Laden was hiding in that country when he was killed in May 2011 by Navy SEALs and CIA spooks.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pakistan-probably-knew-bin-laden-was-hiding-ex-spy-chief/ar-AA9fWFf

What’s more, they well could have know precisely where the world’s most wanted terrorist was hiding when the U.S. strike force landed in the middle of a moonless night in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

The possible revelation comes from former Pakistani Lt. Gen. Asad Durrani, who once led ISI, Pakistan’s major intelligence agency.

The fact that bin Laden was holed up in a large compound so close to a military academy in the city just north of Islamabad has brought suspicion on Pakistan almost from the moment he was shot to death and carried out of Pakistan aboard a Special Forces helicopter.

Many skeptics in this country have wondered how bin Laden could have hidden in plain sight for as long as he did, how he was able to escape detection for a decade after the 9/11 attacks.

As MSN.com reported: “Asked whether it was possible for bin Laden to have lived in the town without the powerful ISI’s knowledge, Durrani said: ‘My assessment… was it is quite possible that they (the ISI) did not know, but it was more probable that they did.'”

ISI is known to be a crack intelligence outfit, with some seriously sophisticated sleuthing skills. Yet, bin Laden was going about his business inside that compound without anyone inside Pakistan ever knowing about it?

Yes, it stretches credulity — and it provides some more tough questions for American intelligence officials to ask of their so-called “allies” in this war on terror.

 

International news

Now it's Congress's turn to step up in fight

1 Comment

My fellow Americans, let us now declare that a moment of truth has just landed on Capitol Hill’s doorstep.

Do members of Congress, most of whom belong to the Republican Party, stand ready to authorize the commander in chief’s use of military force against the Islamic State? Are they now going to sign on in this fight, rather than carp at the president’s strategy, or criticize him for allegedly not having a clear cut mission in this ongoing battle?

Barack Obama today sent a request to Congress for a three-year authorization to keep taking the fight to ISIL. It contains language that prohibits the long term use of U.S. ground forces — except for special operations forces that could be used to conduct specific, surgical strikes against the enemy.

The plan isn’t perfect, but the president says he has heard the calls for congressional approval of however the commander in chief chooses to fight this battle.

So, will Congress step up and sign on? I surely hope so.

President Obama has declared that ISIL is on the defensive. He also said the fight will be difficult, but that the coalition of 60 or so nations — several of which are in the Middle East — are winning the fight. ISIL has been degraded, Obama said, and the coalition of nations is continuing to pound ISIL targets in a relentless air power campaign. Fighters have been killed, as have their commanders. Command and control centers have been disrupted. Morale among ISIL fighters reportedly has deteriorated.

I happen to endorse the president’s reluctance to put U.S. ground troops into yet another Middle East war. The air campaign has been savage and it well could be enough to break up the ISIL fighting force that has created so much havoc, heartache and hysteria in the region it has terrorized.

So, is Congress now going to give the commander in chief the authority he is requesting? Will the legislative branch join this fight?

If the answer is yes, then it must stand with the head of state as he seeks to destroy this dastardly enemy.

 

national news, Uncategorized

'Quack like a duck'?

Megyn Kelly was right to be aghast at what Melissa Harris-Perry asked of the outgoing U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder.

The Fox News host was astonished — as she should have been — that Perry would ask the AG to “quack like a duck” on her nationally televised talk show the other day.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/megyn-kelly-melissa-perry-duck-eric-holder-interview_n_6652134.html

I didn’t see the interview live. I’ve watched a recording of it. I’m wondering as well: What on God’s green Earth is Perry thinking?

Holder has served as the nation’s top law enforcement official since Barack Obama became president in 2009. Yes, he’s made some mistakes along the way and he’s incurred the wrath of many Americans — notably congressional Republicans — over the way he’s run his office.

But I do believe he deserves a lot more respect than what he seemed to be getting from Perry, who is as friendly to the attorney general as any of the talking heads working on cable news networks.

Kelly couldn’t stand the sight and sound of Perry’s bizarre question exchange with Holder.

Neither can I, truth be told.

 

national news

Manson and Burton: too good to be true

Didn’t you just know this engagement was too good to be true?

Charles Manson — yes, that Charles Manson — had been engaged to be married to a young woman, Afton Elaine Burton. Manson is now 80, Burton is in her — gulp! — 20s.

Well, it turns out Burton loved Manson only for his corpse. She allegedly intended to pickle Manson’s remains after his death and display his body, a la V. I. Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung and “Uncle Ho” Chi Minh. She thought it would be a swell tourist attraction, bringing visitors from miles around to see the body of the man who orchestrated those grisly murders back in July 1969.

http://wgntv.com/2015/02/09/charles-mansons-fiancee-allegedly-only-wanted-him-for-his-corpse/

Manson is serving a life sentence for his role in the deaths of actress Sharon Tate and others in California. He won’t be eligible for parole again until 2027, when he’ll be 92 years of age.

It’s a pretty safe bet to assume he won’t get out of prison.

Now it’s been revealed that when Manson realized his sweetie wanted only his remains, he figured he’d been snookered.

Manson no longer wants to marry Burton.

Who knew?

 

State news

Lt. Gov. Patrick: Keep troops on the border

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick wants to keep state National Guard troops on the state’s southern border.

Here’s the question: Is the state’s No. 2 elected official getting ahead of its No. 1 official, the governor, who’s actually in command of the Texas National Guard?

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20150210-lt.-gov.-dan-patrick-wants-to-keep-national-guard-on-texas-border.ece

Former Gov. Rick Perry dispatched the National Guard to the border a year ago in a move seen by many as little more than a grandstanding act designed to make himself look tough in the face of that mass migration of children into Texas, who were fleeing political and economic repression in Central America.

You’ll recall, perhaps, that Gov. Perry sent the troops there with no clear mission — or even any authority — to make arrests.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/07/23/troops-to-the-border/

There’s a new regime at the top in Austin, with Perry now out office and Abbott occupying the governor’s seat, and with Patrick having defeated Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the GOP primary this past spring.

It’s interesting to me that, according to the Dallas Morning News, House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, has taken a cautious approach to Patrick’s call for keeping the troops on patrol along the border. “I appreciate Gov. Patrick’s remarks,” Straus said. “But Gov. Abbott is the commander in chief and he will decide whether to extend the National Guard’s deployment.” The Morning News reports that Abbott had no comment on Patrick’s statements.

All of this has me curious as well. Is the lieutenant governor’s stay-tough approach to border enforcement a symbolic shot across Abbott’s bow to ensure that the Big Man — Abbott — is equally stern in his approach to border enforcement?

Some folks seem to believe Patrick has his eyes set on another political prize in 2018, the one currently possessed by Greg Abbott.

I’m just wondering.

 

national news

Governor in serious ethical trouble

The state of my birth is now the subject of a serious political scandal that is getting stranger by the day, if not the hour.

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber’s fiancée, Cylvia Hayes, has been accused of using her position as “first lady” of the state for personal gain. It involves her lobbying activities and whether she presented herself as a representative of the state her significant other — Kitzhaber — governs.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/02/john_kitzhaber_cylvia_hayes_et_1.html#incart_m-rpt-1

The attached link spells out the trouble quite clearly.

The alleged profiteering reportedly has amounted to a lot of dough that’s gone to Hayes and, presumably, to Kitzhaber as well. The result has produced a firestorm in Oregon.

My hometown newspaper, The Oregonian, has called for the governor’s resignation. Kitzhaber so far hasn’t budged. As for Hayes, well, only the two of them know what they’re saying to each other in private.

But here’s the latest: Kitzhaber and Hayes have filed a response to the Oregon Ethics Commission complaint that borders on the laughable.

They contend that Hayes’s role as “first lady” isn’t an official government title, that she doesn’t run any agency so, therefore, she somehow is exempt from the allegations of conflict of interest that have peppered her. “The title ‘First Lady’ does not refer to an official office within Oregon state government or an officer of Oregon state government,” they wrote. “Ms. Hayes is not a public official.”

But as The Oregonian reported: “As for whether she was a public official, she subbed in for the governor at public events. She orchestrated meetings with senior state officials. She served as the governor’s unpaid adviser on energy and economic policies — by the governor’s reckoning, contributing thousands of hours.”

Doesn’t that make her a de facto state official? By my definition of the term “de facto,” that’s virtually the same thing as getting paid for her work on behalf of the state.

This drama has some distance to go before it plays out. My hunch is that it won’t end well for the governor and his first lady.

 

national news

Williams gone for 6 months, maybe forever

That didn’t take long.

I was hoping to cool my jets for a time while NBC News decided how to handle Brian Williams’ “misremembering” tale of woe. But today, the network news division decided to suspend Williams for six months without pay for violating the No. 1 cardinal rule of journalism — which is to tell the truth.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/nbc-news-suspends-brian-williams-for-false-iraq-helicopter-story/ar-AA9eu7i

It does not appear that this will end well for Williams’ once-stellar journalism career. He got caught fabricating a story about getting shot down in Iraq in 2003; he has been saying for years that his helicopter was hit by enemy rockets when, in fact, it wasn’t.

Then came questions about his reporting on Hurricane Katrina in 2005 — and then some head-scratching regarding his reports about flying over rocket fire in Israel in 2007.

When does it end?

NBC made the right call here. Williams’ credibility is, shall we say, blown to smithereens. His presence now at the NBC Nightly News anchor desk calls attention not to the news he would delivering, but to the man who would deliver it — and not in a positive manner.

What happens now is anyone’s guess. Williams will be off the air for at least six months. I suspect it won’t take him that long to decide that perhaps his time in the anchor’s chair is over.

For the short term, the network and the anchorman will have time to work out a separation agreement and a way to announce his departure that seeks to save a little bit of face — for both parties.

There will be plenty of discussion over how this controversy was allowed to explode and how Williams got away for as long as he did telling a story so many people knew was wrong.

A part of me is sad to witness the implosion of a man’s career.

Another part of me, though, is glad someone is being held accountable for breaching a serious trust between the media and those who expect truth in the information they deliver.

 

International news

Kayla Mueller: another ISIL victim

It now appears that Kayla Jean Mueller has died as a result of an air strike by Jordan air force fighter jets.

The Prescott, Ariz., aid worker died while being held captive by Islamic State terrorists, which in my mind makes her a victim of the monsters who kept her in bondage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kayla-jean-mueller-american-isis-hostage-is-dead-family-confirms/

Mueller’s family confirmed the young woman’s death in a statement released today.

The fight must go on.

Mueller’s death now becomes another rallying cry for the good guys seeking to destroy ISIL and end its campaign of brutality against the world.

She was doing good work, trying to lend aid and comfort to those who were suffering in Syria. ISIL captured her and no doubt subjected her to unspeakable horror.

The Jordanians — enraged at the ghastly immolation death of that young fighter pilot — have stepped up their air strikes against ISIL targets, becoming more fully involved in the U.S.-led air campaign against ISIL in Syria and Iraq. We should welcome Jordan’s participation in this effort.

Yes, it comes at a terrible cost. The fight must continue. “No matter how long it takes,” President Obama said, “the United States will find and bring to justice the terrorists who are responsible for Kayla’s captivity and death.”

Kayla Mueller’s tragic end is on the hands of the terrorists.

 

national news

Anchor's problems mounting

It’s beginning to look as though the reporting of a controversy — more than the actual controversy — well might doom the career of a once-trusted broadcast network journalist.

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams has stepped away from the cameras for an unspecified period of time, while the chatter continues about the circumstances of his made-up story about getting shot down — allegedly — in Iraq in 2003. His helicopter wasn’t hit by rocket fire, as he has reported for a dozen years and the network is launching an investigation into the circumstances of Williams’ “misremembering” the events of that day.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/debate-brews-over-whether-williams-can-survive-controversy/ar-AA9bgGx

Other questions about other stories have emerged.

And now we have media experts speculating aloud about whether Williams should lose his job, whether he should stay, and whether he’s lost the trust of viewers who depend on their TV journalists to tell the truth all the time.

According to The Associated Press: “The real difficulty for a news organization, or a reporter, is that once you’ve made one misstep, it’s really hard to earn (trust) back,” said David Westin, former ABC News president. “You can. But it takes a lot of time. It takes a long period of time with proven performances. It takes a long time of getting it right.”

Here’s the issue, as I see it: All the intense publicity and scrutiny and all the questions that have risen from this matter have damaged Williams’ reputation, perhaps beyond repair. Suppose he emerges from the examination squeaky clean. How does he recover from the millions of snarky comments, the late-night comics’ jokes and not mention the photo-shopped videos that have gone viral showing him landing on the moon, storming ashore at Normandy or planting the flag atop the hill on Iwo Jima?

The nation has made him a laughingstock — and not necessarily because of what has been alleged in the beginning, but because of the reaction to it.

Williams may have become as much a victim of social media as he has of the wounds his ego have inflicted on his career.

 

national news, Uncategorized

Look what they found in moon walker's closet!

Neil Armstrong: smuggler.

It has a fascinating ring to it. Who would have thought the nation’s premier space hero, daredevil test pilot, the first man to ever walk on the moon would have squirreled away some artifacts from humankind’s most daring adventure?

The First Man on the Moon died in 2012, and his widow, Carol, has uncovered a trove of goodies she discovered in his closet.

http://www.cnet.com/news/forgotten-apollo-moon-artifacts-found-in-neil-armstrongs-closet/

I think it’s quite cool that he managed to sneak this stuff past his NASA bosses.

The artifacts were supposed to have crashed into the moon, along with the Apollo 11 lunar lander, which Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left behind in lunar orbit in July 1969 when they hooked up with Michael Collins in the command module. Armstrong, though, brought the items home with him.

They include a camera used to take pictures on the moon as well as some gizmos and gadgets that had been stuffed into a bag and placed in Armstrong’s closet.

Hey, these items aren’t secret weapons, nor do they require some kind of top-secret clearance to handle.

I can recall coming home from the Army in 1970 with some items I was supposed to turn into the quartermaster’s office as I was transitioning back to civilian life. I still have my trusty entrenching tool, issued to me in 1968 and, by golly, I still use it around the yard. I can’t recall how I got it past the supply sergeant back then.

Whatever.

Mrs. Armstrong’s discovery has been turned over to the Smithsonian Institution’s Air and Space Museum, where I’m sure it’ll be put on proper display.

It’s a pretty cool discovery.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience