| Wednesday,
April 4, 2011 I am beginning to wonder if they didn't
actually capture Osama bin Laden. It's not likely, of course; but President
Obama, having made a fairly courageous decision to send in the shooters
rather than just blow the hideout to bits, seems to have made a bit of a
mess of the aftermath.
Bin Laden was buried at sea with Muslim rites (presumably conducted by
Christians since a translator was involved), which is not likely to
satisfy anyone. Muslim True Believers do not accept burial at sea if there
is any alternative. Others would say that Osama bin Laden deserved a
different set of last rites: to be greased with pork lard, sewn into a
pigskin sack, and set out where hyenas or birds of prey or both could
finish the job. After the Arab conquest of Persia following
Qadisiyah, there was a long struggle between Mazda fire worshippers and
Islam; the Mazdan burial ritual proscribes exposing the body to the sun
and leaving it in a place where it is vulnerable to birds of prey, one
reason for the Islamic taboos on having the body consumed by predators.
Another possibility would have been to put his head on a pike for display
at Ground Zero.
Of
all those who have opinions on what ought to have been done with bin
Laden, few will be satisfied by what was actually done with him. It does
not seem a satisfactory solution to the situation. Of course it can't be
undone now. He's in the Indian Ocean, accompanied, I suspect, by the
excretions of a goodly number of the crew (wait until that story
gets out).
And now the President won't show us the pictures. There is no
announcement of who did the DNA tests and what tests were done. No experts
have come forward to explain. It is as if no one thought about what to do
to close the operation.
Which tells us that the "months of planning" were not planning at all.
It was dithering, not planning. Proper planning would have determined in
advance what to do with the body and with the photographs of the body. And
now we must wait until Sixty Minutes on Sunday night to find out precisely
what will be done.
It is all very puzzling. Why has Obama spoiled his triumph? Is this
just advisors who are too clever by half, or is there a story in here? All
very puzzling indeed.
===============
There are now reports from Pakistan that there were no weapons in the
bin Laden compound, so there could not have been a firefight. This seems
unlikely. Bin Laden wasn't heavily guarded, but surely there were some
weapons in his hideout. Several people including one woman, and one of bin
Laden's sons, were killed. We
haven't seen the teddy bears yet, but I'm watching for them.
Perhaps we can run some pictures of al Qaeda beheading people along
with pictures of the mutilated corpse? The President has released pictures
of mutilated corpses, just not this one.
And I now have reports that in some California schools they are
questioning the violation of bin Laden's civil rights. We can hope that's
a joke.
===============
There are also reports that they were growing hashish in the bin Laden
compound. While the use of hashish is traditional in some Muslim cultures
-- the word "assassin" was long thought to derive from the Old Man of the
Mountain who used hashish as part of the rituals of training for his
dedicated followers -- it is, like alcohol, forbidden by most Islamic
schools. Al Qaeda proclaims itself a very traditional and orthodox Sunni
religion.
==============
It was not a good week to be the youngest son of a Muslim terrorist
leader. Meanwhile the war in Libya splutters on.
Libya: aid ship cuts short mission in Misurata after
coming under fire
A British-funded aid ship was forced to cut short its
mission to evacuate civilians from Libya after Col Muammar Gaddafi's
forces shelled the port of Misurata shortly after it docked.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/
africaandindianocean/libya/8493150/Libya-aid-
ship-cuts-short-mission-in-Misurata-after-coming-
under-fire.html
Meaning that Gaddafi still controls his forces and is moving into
control of Misurata. What comes next? Will Seal Team Six be sent in for
Qaddafi?
==========
Inside Washington:
interesting times
Jerry,
Well, we already know we live in interesting times.
There is a story out there that, if true, makes things even more
interesting. Way too interesting, if true...
The claim is that the order to kill bin Laden didn't
originate with the President - that he was largely a bystander in a power
struggle, over doing the mission or not, between elements of his staff and
cabinet.
The story itself is at
http://socyberty.com/issues/
white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-
panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/ . It reads halfway
plausibly, but the site it's on doesn't look that credible, and it could
equally plausibly be a fabrication.
Things get more interesting if you look at the
author's site, at
http://www.triond.com/users/Ulsterman. He's obviously not a fan
of the President's. But look at the April 28th story onward, and things
get interestingly more circumstantial, with advance hints at the
above-claimed staff/Cabinet brawl (and a white House inside source with
axes to grind) several days before the bin Laden mission was announced.
Now, the writer could be an opportunistic fabulist,
or he could have a lapful of dynamite. I can't tell. The story fits the
circumstances and personalities I'm aware of (and, come to think of it,
also helps explain the bizarre Libya intervention) is all I can say.
Someone with a better handle on details of how this White House operates
might have a better idea of the veracity of all this. All I can say is, if
the foreign policy of the United States is in fact being conducted on such
a basis, January of 2013 can't come soon enough.
sign me
Porkypine
The question is one of the character of the President. Does this seem a
likely description of the man in action? I have no experience with the
President as decision maker.
I can say from my own knowledge that this story is very consistent with
Panetta's character and personality as it was two decades ago. I once made
speeches at fundraisers for Congressman Panetta, a Democrat, because he
was supporting SDI and certain other space programs, and I thought him a
good influence on the California Democratic caucus. As a Congressman he
was best described as a New Democrat. I haven't met with him since
Clinton appointed him Chief of Staff. Some describe him as a relentless
liberal. My experiences with him concerned space military policy back in
Reagan days, and I did not find him a relentless ideologue at the time.
That was, of course, long ago.
During the Reagan administration I found him a Realist in foreign
policy, realistically but not fanatically pro-Israel, and generally in
favor of investing in military and space technology. Given the choices
President Obama could have made, I was not displeased with his choice for
Director of Central Intelligence, and became even less so when Senator
Feinstein was unhappy with that choice.
When Speaker Pelosi accused the CIA of having a policy of lying to the
Congress, former Speaker Newt Gingrich said:
The first issue was whether or not, in 2002,
she was, as the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, being
given certain information. She claims she was not given it. Other people
claim she was given it. That should be a matter for investigation by the
House, as to whether or not she is lying.
But the second thing she did was, in trying
to defend herself, she went on to say that the CIA lies all the time to
Congress.
That is a terrible falsehood. It is illegal.
And, in fact, I was very impressed on Friday when former Democratic
congressman, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, Leon
Panetta, now the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, sent out an
email to all of his employees at the Central Intelligence Agency, pointing
out very explicitly -- this is a former Democratic congressman -- saying
that they did brief in 2002 accurately; saying that it is a falsehood to
suggest that the CIA lies to the Congress, that that is against the law,
and the CIA, as an institution of the United States government, must obey
the law.
I felt that, to smear every man and woman in
our intelligence service who is out there risking their life trying to
defend America from terrorists, trying to defend America from other major
powers -- worried about North Korea, worried about Pakistan, worried about
Iran -- for those folks to have, as speaker of the House, third in line to
be president, somebody who had that level of contempt and that level of
dishonesty was simply unacceptable.
You'll have to make up your own minds about
the story. I do not find it incredible.
============
Pictures taken by the Pakistani journalists the morning after, and sold
to Reuters
http://www.calgarysun.com/
2011/05/04/photos-show-three-
dead-men-at-bin-laden-raid-house
==============
Wednesday TOP
Current Mail
|
