Keeping Secrets

The New York Times provides today's headline: C.I.A. Held Qaeda Leader in Secret Jail for Months

Someone break out the waaambulance because I don't care that he was held in secret for months. I'm happy that someone was able to keep a secret for as long as they did - without breaching operational security on intel gathering that saves lives. That he was captured and held without the media picking up on it for months lets me know that there are still folks in the CIA and military that pride themselves on maintaining secrets and gathering intel that helps direct military operations and further intel gathering on the inner workings of the al Qaeda terror operations inside Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

The Times has problems with secret detentions of terrorists so that we can obtain crucial and timely intel. Yet, the NYT and other leftists want to have GitMo shut down, as if they have a better solution for where to keep these terrorists. The announcement came after he was transferred from the secret facility to GitMo.

Let's not forget that this guy was only a few small notches below Osama and above Zawahiri on the hit parade. He was as connected as terrorists come, and his connections may have included those inside Saddam's government.

Once again, it seems that the NYT is more concerned about a terrorist's civil rights than the rights of the US to defend itself against a genocidal enemy.

Then, there's this minor issue of ignoring a couple of inconvenient facts:

American officials have long been worried about efforts by Qaeda leadership in Pakistan to exert control over its Iraqi offshoot, known as Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and the dispatch of Mr. Iraqi to help run the Iraqi affiliate has raised concern among American military officials that the links between the groups are growing.

“We do definitely see links to the greater Al Qaeda network,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday.

But the relationship between Qaeda fighters in Iraq and the top leadership has appeared to wax and wane over the years, often over tactical disagreements.

In 2005, Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s second in command, wrote a letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the top Al Qaeda operative in Iraq, urging him to refrain from killing Shiites. But since then, terrorist experts have said that they see Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as largely independent of the organization hub in Pakistan.

Al Iraqi was an Iraqi who was in the Iraqi military under Saddam, and likely maintained his contacts. Who was he in contact with and can that knowledge be exploited to bring down the insurgency and al Qaeda operations?

Zarqawi, al Qaeda's prior head in Iraq, had no problem slaughtering everyone in sight before he ended up well and truly dead after US airstrikes. al Iraqi probably was sent back to Iraq to impose better operational controls and better coordination between terror cells so that they inflict as much carnage as possible on US forces, and not simply slaughtering anyone and everyone in their path.

Also, it would also make sense that there were tactical disagreements between the various terror cells because some had military training while most others did not - and some were far more willing to shed Muslim blood than others.

Bill Roggio looks at the implications of al Iraqi's capture and what it means for operations in Afghanistan and the links between Iran and the terrorist organization. And note that al Iraqi was in contact with al Qaeda located inside Iran.

Abd al-Hadi is also said to have worked with Saif al Adel, al Qaeda's operational planner who is currently in Iran. The two are said to have planted the seeds for al Qaeda's involvement in Iraq's insurgency.

Abd al-Hadi's capture comes as General Petraeus outlined Iranian Qods Force's involvement with the February 20 attack on the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, which led to the aborted kidnapping and subsequent murder of five U.S. soldiers. Qods Force armed, trained, and advised the Qazili network, which carried out the attack.

U.S. forces detained several senior leaders of the Qazili network, and captured a "22-page memorandum on a computer that detailed the planning, preparation, approval process and conduct of the operation that resulted in five of our soldiers being killed in Karbala," said Gen. Petraeus.

Gen. Petraeus also discussed the Sheibani network, "which brings explosively formed projectiles into Iraq from Iran," as well as other deadly weapons from Iran. An American military intelligence official informs us that the Sheibani network is one of Qods Force's foreign networks in Iraq, just as Hezbollah is an Iranian arm in Lebanon.

The deadly nexus between al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia must be closely examined, especially because of the way the terror group is funded and safe havens provided. Regimes may be providing lip service to cracking down on al Qaeda, but functionally they have simply hidden the way they provide assistance, and alternatively, have provided Iran the means to hold sway over the group because they are far more willing to engage in terrorism against the US via their proxy forces - Hizbullah and Hamas.

The knowledge gathered from those terrorist groups is certainly being shared among other terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda, and Iran is serving as a conduit for terrorists.

The Rabbit Hole

The New York Times is running a major story today about how the US Defense Department published online hundreds of thousands of documents captured in Iraq that required translation and hoped to utilize the distributed knowledge of Internet users to translate the information.

Well, the Times now claims that the information published online included primers on how to build nuclear weapons - information that could prove useful to the likes of Iran. That is, if the Times reporting itself is correct. If the reporting is indeed correct, that changes everything - and not for the better for Democrats.

That begs quite a few questions. Does this not show that Iraq was indeed working on nuclear weapons programs and reserving the technical know-how to produce the weapons the moment sanctions were lifted? Indeed the Times actually goes further than that:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

For those that are still slow on the uptake, that would mean not only that Iraq had the garden variety WMDs, but was quite close to having the ultimate WMD - a nuclear weapon at its disposal.

It also raises yet more questions about the disposition of the program itself - where are the ultimate traces of the program. The papertrail deserves additional examination and it needs to be done swiftly.

Also, the rationale for shutting down the site (which the DoD did overnight) included concerns that Iran might be able to exploit the database for its own purposes. Does this not show that the world's concern about Iran's nuclear program are well-founded if this database could be used by the Iranians to aid in the development of their own nuclear program. If the Iranian program was for peaceful means, how and why would the Iraqi weapons program prove useful?

Why does the New York Times now suddenly realize that this database contains sensitive information that must be shut down, when only weeks and months earlier found no problem highlighting the NSA and SWIFT programs designed to hunt down terrorists around the world via their communications and financial transactions. The sudden shift cannot possibly be because of an election coming up, would it? Allah questions the timing. The sudden interest in national security just days before an election does seem most curious. Michelle Malkin concurs. It is curious alright.

Ed Morrissey, who has been on top of the publication of data from this database of documents notes that the nature of these documents must be legit if the Times is running the story in this fashion. He, among others, wonders now if everyone who has called the Administrations liars will now admit that they themselves were wrong since Bush appears to have been vindicated based on this Times story.

Now, if the Times got its reporting wrong, and tried to claim that the database information wasn't as important as they claim - trying to stress that the Administration's hold on classified information is flawed right before an election based on inaccurate reporting itself becomes the story: The Times itself would be trying to swing the election based on shoddy reporting.

That's why this story should be a win-win for the GOP. Not only would one outcome be that the GOP and Bush are vindicated by the Administration going into Iraq, but the flipside is that the Times pushing a bogus story right before the election would further seal its fate - and that of Democrats who hope this story might hurt the GOP right before an election.

Others blogging: Stop the ACLU (and here), Macranger, AJ Strata, and more to come.

UPDATE:
For a good review on the NYT duplicity at election time, and how they may have completely sabotaged Democrat chances going forward, see this piece by Doug Ross.

UPDATE:
Don Surber makes an interesting observation about the publication of the information from which this Times story was culled. If this information was so valuable, how come no one from the Times bothered to check it out and publish a story on it until the Friday before the midterm elections.

Now, the website repository has been taken down, and the lefty websites are all atwitter over the fact that the Bush Administration provided information that would help Iran with its weapons program (that Iran itself says it doesn't have). What information was provided? And if this information helps provide the Iranian with key details that further its nuclear weapons program (that the Iranians keep saying they don't have), what exactly would it be doing for the Iraqi program? Collecting dust? That's what we're supposed to believe?

Would anyone have known that the Iraqis were as far along on their reconstitution of a nuclear weapons program if this repository wasn't public? Does anyone think that the Iranians need our help more than we're providing simply by giving them time to work out the kinks in their program. The Iranians continue to obtain crucial information and technologies from China and North Korea, and Russia is running interference. Iran's participation in the AQ Khan network is also known.

So, if the documents are supposed to be giving the Iranians the bomb, that would mean that Iraq was already there (since these documents are the ostensible missing links to getting the bomb that Iran so desperately wants but denies having interest therein).

Tom Maguire points out that the Iranians also got a wee bit of assistance from the Clinton Administration, who provided details about the nuclear triggers. That piece of equipment is the part that enables the nuclear weapon to fire off correctly and efficiently (or else you end up with a fizzle).

James Joyner provides a nice capsule summary - along with reaction from both sides of the aisle. He doesn't think the story as significant as others, but is open to being convinced.

For those wanting to see how far down the rabbit hole this goes, check out the following bloggers: Flopping Aces, QandO, Decision 08, and Argghhh!

UPDATE:
Still further down the rabbit hole. Ray Robison, who has been translating these documents and publishing them on his website (and via Ed Morrissey) has more to say about the latest from the Times. He thinks that his contacting the IAEA might have triggered this reporting in the first place. Confederate Yankee has more.

UPDATE:
Still others wandering down the rabbit hole: Jim Geraghty, Hyscience, Coalition of the Swilling, Cold Fury, Fausta, Small Dead Animals, and Kobiyashi Maru.

UPDATE:
Jason Smith notes some of the documents that had been translated in the past, along with some photographic evidence accompanying one of the documents. If you spot Zarqawi, you'd be correct.

Technorati: UNSCAM, Oil for Food, and Kofi Annan, iraq, saddam hussein, and bush lied, united states, atomic bomb, and nuclear weapons, politics.

Big Game Hunting

Rusty at the Jawa Report notes that Iraqi forces appear to have captured a big fish in the Islamic terror group circles.

The leader of Ansar al Sunnah, Muntasir al-Jibouri, appears to have been captured.

Ansar al Sunnah's organizational structure is not as well know as al Qaeda's. It appears, though, that al-Jibouri's voice can be heard on at least two hostage murder videos-and probably many many more (thanks to Mike for the reminder). Like Zarqawi, al Jibouri is said to have personally murdered many of Ansar al Sunna's victims.

For awhile, Abu Musab al Zarqawi and the terrorist bastards at Ansar al Sunna appeared to be in a pissing match over who could behead the most civilians. Just this month the group posted a gruesome video of the beheading of 3 Iraqis.

Who are Ansar al Sunna, you say? I don't blame you for not knowing, I blame the ignorant press. And the Democrats. The press because they speak of insurgents in Iraq, and not terrorists. And the Democrats because they speak as if any one who is not formally within al Qaeda is not a terrorist. Eg., Saddam did not support terrorists because there was no link to al Qaeda. Idiots.

Ansar al Sunnah is the second worst terrorist organization in Iraq. They are probably made up of the remnants of Ansar al Islam, and mostly operate in Iraq's North. They are also Kurds. Occasional they pull off an operation in Kurdistan, but the Peshmerga (Kurdish fighters, secularists) have effectively wiped them out. The Kurds know what to do with Islamist terrorists. They kill them.

And now that he's captured, one hopes that the Iraqi and coalition forces will be able to utilize the intel gathered and roll up additional terrorists and thugs working with Ansar, and help stabilize the situation in Iraq.

Just How Much Digging Did Media Do?

Yesterday, I wondered just how much digging did the Senate committee do in its research and publication of a report that the media claimed found no links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Today, I wonder just how much did the media read of that same report. Ed Morrissey has gone through a searchable pdf of the report and found that the media missed quite a bit. Like the fact that Saddam Hussein retained the ability to produce biological weapons, and while large scale production ceased after 1996, the ability to ramp up production was retained.

Saddam also refused to accept limitations on missile ranges.

Postwar findings of the ISG confirm the Intelligence Community’s assessment that Iraq developed the Al Samud II and Al Fat’h (formerly Ababil- 100) missiles with procurements prohibited by UN sanctions, or subject to UN verification, and the missile ranges exceeded 150&m, in violation of UN prohibitions. The ISG found numerous instances where Iraq disregarded UN prohibitions and sought to improve its missile capabilities. The ISG found that Saddam did not consider ballistic missiles to be WMD and he never accepted the missile range restrictions imposed by the UN, although in late February 2003, he ultimately acquiesced to UN demands that the Al Samud II inventory be destroyed. Additionally, flight test data recovered by the ISG confirm that both the Al Samud II and the Al Fat’h had ranges in excess of 150~km. These findings support the Intelligence Community’s assessment that Iraq was developing and testing SRBMs which were capable of flying beyond the UN-administered 150~km range limit.

AJ Strata also takes the media to task for their reading comprehension skills. The report states that there was no way to definitively ascertain the terrorist links and that it did not have the capability to investigate the situation in post-war Iraq. Big Lizards further notes the careful parsing of AP articles on the report and makes the following observation that can be easily distilled to the enemy of my enemy is my friend:

I am utterly persuaded that Saddam Hussein saw al-Qaeda, and especially Musab Zarqawi up in Ansar al-Islam, as a "threat" to his regime. But that does not mean Hussein made any attempt to remove Zarqawi, nor that he did not harbor Zarqawi, nor even that he did not have an operational relationship with Zarqawi.

For heaven's sake, many Americans in the 1940s saw Communism as a threat to the United States (though the president did not)... but that did not stop FDR, with the support of the entire political establishment, from allying with Josef Stalin against Adolf Hitler. There is an old proverb: Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. Thus, the central dichotomy of the AP story is a canard: there is no inherent conflict between fearing an enemy and allying with that same enemy.

Just because some intel revealed that Saddam thought al Qaeda as a rival or potential enemy doesn't mean that they didn't work together at both the micro or macro levels of politics. It's not as though Democrats don't work with Republicans in Congress even though they're rivals. It's not as though FDR and Churchill worked with Stalin despite their knowing that Stalin had earlier alligned himself with Hitler. It's not as though that we repeatedly see the US alligning itself with shady regimes, including Saddam's Iraq in the early 1990s because of who else was in the neighborhood (Iran).

The report was a political document, and the media picked up only those bits that satisfy the political edge, not those inconvenient bits that show the US was right to be concerned about Iraq's ongoing violations of UN resolutions, the 1991 cease fire agreement, and support of terrorism.

Just How Much Digging Did Senate Do?

The headline blares that a Senate report found no ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. That would certainly be news to anyone who's been following counter terror operations and foreign policy for the better part of a decade.

NBC News' Brian Williams breathlessly leads the newscast tonite saying that there are no links, and that this report shreds the argument that there were links between al Qaeda and Iraq.

The problem for Williams and others making such arguments is that there were more than a few links between Iraq and al Qaeda, and they've been documented for quite some time.

The links are numerous and they're well documented, even by the very Senate committee that produced this report. And there's also questions over the individual responsible for the production of the section on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. In fact, according to Mark Levin's sources, the person responsible was a Kerry operative who somehow managed to get a job with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) and other staffers found that he was cherry picking information.

Mark Levin also took aim and fired for effect, namely the ways that Iraqi intel agents operated to secretly coordinate activities with al Qaeda for fear of being discovered by foreign intel operations. Steven Hayes has much more:

One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen. As the memo details:

4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

Flopping Aces goes back to the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq in 2003, and finds the following statement:

“Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

We know that various terrorist operatives were found in Iraq well before the US invasion in 2003, including Abu Nidal.

Saddam Hussein's own memos give lie to the fact that there was no connection or relationship:

Headed by the Saudi Usamah Bin Ladin [UBL], who is a member of a wealthy Saudi family with his roots going back to Hadhramut. This family has a strong ties with the ruling family in Saudi. He is one of the leaders of the Afghan-Arabs, who volunteered for jihad in Afghanistan. After the expulsion of the Russians, he moved to live in Sudan in 1992 subsequent to the Islamists arrival to power in Sudan.

[A]s a result of his antagonistic positions against the ruling Saudi family in opposition to the foreign presence in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi authorities issued a decree to withdrawing his Saudi Citizenship. We approached the committee by doing the following:

A. During the visit of the Sudanese Dr. Ibrahim Al-Sunusi to Iraq and his meeting with Mr. `Uday Saddam Hussein, on December 13th 1994, with the presence of the respectable, Mr. Director of the Intelligence Services, he [Dr. Al-Sunusi] pointed out that the opposing Usamah Bin Ladin, residing in Sudan, who expressed reservations and fear that he may be depicted by his enemies as an agent for Iraq; is ready to meet with us in Sudan (The Honorable Presidency was informed of the results of the meeting in our letter 782 on December 17th 1994).

B. An approval to meet with opposer Usama Bin Ladin by the Intelligence Services was given by the Honorable Presidency in its letter 138, dated January 11th 1995 (attachment 6). He [UBL] was met by the previous general director of M ‘I M 4 [QCC: possible the previous General Director of Intelligence] in Sudan, with the presence of the Sudanese, Ibrahim Al-Sannusi, on February 19th 1995. A discussion ensued with him about his organization, he [UBL] requested the broadcasting of the speeches of Sheikh Sulayman Al-`Udah (who has an influence within Saudi Arabia and outside, due to his religious and influential personality), to designate a program for them through the radio broadcast directed inside Iraq, and to perform joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz. (The Honorable Presidency was informed of the details of the meeting in our letter 370 on March 4th 1995, attachment 7)

C. The approval was received from the Leader, Mr. President, may God keep him, to designate a program for them {QCC: UBL and the Sheikh] through the directed radio broadcast. We were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to find out what other avenues of cooperation and agreement would open up. The Sudanese were informed of the Honorable Presidency’s approval of the above through the representative of the Respectable Director of Intelligence Services our Ambassador in Khartoum.

D. Due to the recent situation in Sudan, and being accused of supporting and embracing terrorism, an agreement with the opposer Saudi Usamah Bin Laden was reached, to depart Sudan to another region; whereas, he left Khartoum in July of 1996. The information indicates that he is currently in Afghanistan.

The relationship with him is ongoing through the Sudanese side. Currently, we are working to revitalize this relationship through a new channel in light of his present location.

It's interesting to note that the countries that keep popping up in these memos and documents are the same ones where the fight against Islamic fundamentalism is being fought - Afghanistan, Sudan, and Somalia. Specifically, Sudan is a facilitator between Iraq and al Qaeda, and was the former home for Osama before he departed for Afghanistan.

Security Watchtower also notes the inconsistencies between the report's summaries and its contents:

It would not be accurate to say this report concludes there was no relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq.

As for Iraq and its relationship to Al Qaeda, again, that is such a large topic. But there is plenty to suggest the SCI missed the boat here.

See Thomas Joscelyn's article Rogue Bureaucrat, or the Hayes and Joscelyn article The Mother of all Connections. See Mark Eichenlaub's website, or read Sam Pender's book. There is much that the SCI did not address in this report.

As for Zarqawi and Ansar al Islam, the report says prewar intelligence "expressed uncertainty" over Iraqi support for Zarqawi and Ansar al Islam.

Among the intelligence that the SCI report dismisses as "uncertainty" is this passage from the very Iraqi Support for Terrorism report it used as a baseline.

On the one hand, they're claiming that there was a paucity of intel to either support or deny any ties, but on the other they claim with definitive knowledge that there were no such ties. That inconsistency is found throughout.

The US continues to uncover links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime, in the course of going through the millions of documents recovered, along with debriefing various Iraqi officials. They were partners in terror, and it extended well before the war in Iraq started in 2003. Those ties became much closer after the invasion.

Thomas Joscelyn doesn't find the report to be persuasive at all:

The committee's staff made little effort to determine whether or not the testimony of former Iraqi regime officials was truthful. In fact, Saddam Hussein and several of his top operatives--all of whom have an obvious incentive to lie--are cited or quoted without caveats of any sort. In Saddam's debriefing it was suggested that he may cooperate with al Qaeda because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." According to the report, "Saddam answered that the United States was not Iraq's enemy. He claimed that Iraq only opposed U.S. policies. He specified that if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China."

Anyone with even a partial recollection of the controversy surrounding Iraq in the 1990s will recall that Saddam made it a habit of cursing and threatening the United States. His annual January "Army Day" speeches were laced with threats and promises of retaliation against American assets. That is, when Saddam claimed that the United States was "not Iraq's enemy," he was quite obviously lying. But nowhere in the staff's report is it noted that Saddam's debriefing was substantially at odds with more than a decade of his rhetoric.

The testimony of another former senior Iraqi official is more starkly disturbing. One of Saddam's senior intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was questioned about his contacts with bin Laden and al Qaeda. There is a substantial body of reporting on Hijazi's ties to al Qaeda throughout the 1990s.

Hijazi admitted to meeting bin Laden once in 1995, but claimed that "this was his sole meeting with bin Ladin or a member of al Qaeda and he is not aware of any other individual following up on the initial contact."

This is not true. Hijazi's best known contact with bin Laden came in December 1998, days after the Clinton administration's Operation Desert Fox concluded. We know the meeting happened because the worldwide media reported it. The meeting took place on December 21, 1998. And just days later, Osama bin Laden warned, "The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders decision to attack Iraq. It is the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill them."

This report, in sum, was an unserious and deeply flawed piece that does nothing to shed light on the extent of the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

The Latest al Qaeda Tape

Al Jazeera broadcast heretofore unknown video footage showing two of the 19 9/11 hijackers meeting with Osama bin Laden and other top leaders of al Qaeda before they launched their deadly attacks on the United States.

Release of the five-year-old video was clearly timed to coincide with the anniversary of an attack that killed almost 3,000 and launched the United States on a "war on terror" from home shores to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The channel identified two men in the tape as Ramzi Binalshibh, suspected coordinator of the September 11 plot who was transferred recently to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Hafs al-Masri -- a former top lieutenant of bin Laden killed in a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan in 2001.

In Washington, the White House quickly noted that Binalshibh is in custody. Bush revealed on Wednesday that Binalshibh had been one of the terrorism suspects interrogated under a secret CIA program and that he had now been transferred to Guantanamo Bay.

"As the president has said as recently as yesterday, one by one we will bring the 9/11 plotters to justice for their vicious acts, including Ramzi Binalshibh who is now in DOD (Department of Defense) custody," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

The video portrayed Saudi Arabian Bin Laden, dressed in dark robe and white headgear, greeting a fighter against the backdrop of a mountain. Two of the September 11 attackers, Wael al-Shihri and Hamza al-Ghamdi, were shown presenting their taped "wills."

Al-Shihri's address carried the English language subtitle "One of the Martyrs of the Manhattan Raid."

Well, I called it in saying that another tape would be forthcoming. AQ wasn't going to let 9/11 pass without more videos from the Dear Leader and his minions. This wasn't so much a new tape, but a clips show of items from Osama's family album.

What it does show is that Osama was clearly involved and knowledgable in the 9/11 attacks, and undermines the conspiracy theorists who run around claiming that Osama or the Islamists had nothing to do with the attacks. These same folks will, of course, question the timing of the video releases. Gee, does the fact that we're only a few day removed from the fifth anniversary of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks have anything to do with this? I think it has everything to do with it.

One could only wish to have video showing those same hijackers meeting up with Osama in Hell (though I think the Onion got the jump on that story). We know that Zarqawi has already signed in, so it's only a matter of time before Osama joins 'em. It just can't happen quickly enough.

It is curious though, that quite a few al Qaeda members in the video have since been killed or captured, including Muhammad Atef and Ramzi Binalshibh.

New Video, Same Old Story

Convert/submit or die. We've been hearing about this for quite some time from al Qaeda's minions, whether it's Zawahiri, Zarqawi, or Osama himself. Their minions around the world take hostages and threaten them to convert or die. Stop defending yourself and your way of life, or face the consequences. That's the choice presented to Olaf Wiig and Steve Centanni, and they chose to convert. They were released shortly after the conversion.

It's the message that Ahamdinejad presented to Germany's Merkel and US President Bush. It's yet another da'wa. Submit to Islam or suffer the consequences.

The enemies of the West are not being shy about their intentions. They're plainly stating what they want us to do, and what they will do if we do not submit to their way of life.

Submission is the key here. It's the central tenet to this vision of political Islam.

Pajamas Media has a roundup.

One of the features of this latest video is the appearance of the convert to Islam, American Adam Yehiye Gadahn aka Azzam the American. This holds symbolic power. If you convert, you too can join the powerful leadership of al Qaeda and the worldwide movement of Islam. Widen the appeal of radical Islam, as well as provide a spokesperson who speaks English as opposed to reliance on translators. It's all about trying to make the message more effective, and al Qaeda is nothing if not keen on its media operations.

Of course, it's also a sign that you too can become a tool and useful idiot for the Islamists who will find such people expendible the moment their own lives are put in danger.

Now, there are those who will inevitably question the timing of the release of this tape with the fifth anniversary of 9/11 right around the corner. You can be sure that al Qaeda is quite aware of the date, and will use the next week to hammer home the fact that they're still relevant and I expect further videos to be released, and that another mass casualty attack might be planned to coincide with the fifth anniversary.

Others blogging: Counterterrorism Blog, Power Line, Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Flopping Aces, Wizbang, Blue Crab Boulevard.

Behind the Kidnapping of Journalists in Gaza

Rusty at the Jawa Report thinks that the kidnapping of two journalists, US citizen Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig of New Zeeland, who were working for Fox News, may have been done by a group spawned by the nihlistic tendencies of al Qaeda's master murderer, Zarqawi. Rusty wrote:

I have some bad news. I just learned that the Global Islamic Media Front--an al Qaeda propaganda outlet--has released documentation of the two Fox News hostages. The message and vid were the same ones you saw yesterday, with the addition of photo IDs--including Centanni's Congressioal press pass.

Centanni's pass may be why this group of thugs believes his hostage taking could actually exert leverage, and the speculations that it was his Fox affiliation are probably overblown (even though I have engaged in them from time to time myself).

With GIMFs involvement, it is now almost certain that an al Qaeda group is behind this--though they are probably of the 3.0 variety, which means they are not under the direct control of the leadership but are "fellow travellers". It also means that they look to Abu Musab al Zarqawi as their inspiration, since GIMF was founded as an offshoot of al Qaeda in Iraq under Zarqawi's leadership.

I won't even mention what the Zarqawi link implies.

If this is the case--and these are words you may never hear repeated at The Jawa Report---then God help the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in finding them before it is too late.

Meanwhile, Time Magazine thinks that this might actually be a group seeking to embarrass Hamas and Fatah in a power play in Gaza and West Bank.

But Palestinian security sources tell TIME that the conditions presented Wednesday are little more than a stall tactic, and that the seizure of the two men has much more to do with internal Palestinian and Islamic militant politics than with striking a blow against Israel and the U.S.

The Palestinian security sources told TIME that Holy Jihad Brigades is made up of gunmen who belonged to one of the many armed groups that splintered apart from the late Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. Arafat's weak and distracted successor, Mahmoud Abbas, has failed to rein them in, and they now operate inside the West Bank territories and Gaza as lawless vigilantes. Some are still on the payroll of Gaza's Preventive Security Police, a fiefdom of the Fatah's bosses. Suspicion has fallen on three groups in particular — Al Nasser Salaheddin, Abu Reesh Brigade, Abu Rees Brigade, and a spin-off of al Qasa Brigades based in the Gaza town of Khan Younis, near where the TV crew was captured at gunpoint. These security sources say that most likely, the Holy Jihad Brigades was created for the sole purpose of carrying out this kidnapping.

Well, there is another ongoing hostage situation that merits inclusion in this discussion - that of Gilad Shalit, whose capture by Hamas terrorists more than a month ago sparked Israeli raids into Gaza and attacks against Hamas and Fatah strongholds, arrests and elimination of the terrorist leadership along with the detention of members of the Palestinian Parliment.

Is the motivation to discredit Abu Mazen (aka Abbas)? Well, he's done absolutely nothing to indicate that he's in control of anything more than his own room. Hamas does what it likes, and Fatah's military wing does as it pleases, along with Fatah's splinter groups like the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. No one is controlling Gaza except roving gangs of competing militias from Hamas and Fatah. Fatah and Hamas have been trying to figure out how to get along, but neither wants to concede any power to the other, and Hamas refuses to deal with Israel, which complicates matters further.

Thus, there's no one to talk to in Gaza that could intercede. That leaves the two journalists in a very precarious position.

Holland Tunnel Bomb Plot Disrupted

The FBI has uncovered what officials consider a serious plot by jihadists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in hopes of causing a torrent of water to deluge lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned.

The terrorists sought to drown the Financial District as New Orleans was by Hurricane Katrina, sources said. They also wanted to attack subways and other tunnels.

Counterterrorism officials are alarmed by the "lone wolf" terror plot because they allegedly got a pledge of financial and tactical support from Jordanian associates of top terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before he was killed in Iraq, a counterterrorism source told The News.

It's not clear, however, if any cash or assistance was delivered.

The News has learned that at the request of U.S. officials, authorities in Beirut arrested one of the alleged conspirators, identified as Amir Andalousli, in recent months. Agents were scrambling yesterday to try to nab other suspects, sources said.

Some folks, like Ron Kuby are latching on to the fact that such a terror plot could not result in the kind of harm that the terrorists imagined - it is simply impossible for the flooding of the Holland Tunnel to cause flooding in Lower Manhattan. This notion is simply irrelevant.

Consider the target. The Holland Tunnel, opened in 1927, is a critical part of the NYC Metro area transportation infrastructure. The destruction of the tunnel in a terrorist attack would mean the loss of life for hundreds of people, and thousands would be injured - especially if occurring during rush hour. The damage would cost billions to repair, and the local economies in both New York and New Jersey would be severely impacted.

The other piece of information that is worrisome is that the terrorists sought out not just the Holland Tunnel, but other tunnels and subways for attacks as well.

In fact, this disrupted plot mirrors the NYC landmark bomb plot attempted by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's followers to succeed where his 1993 WTC bombers failed. That plot included targeting the UN Headquarters, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the GWB, PATH tunnels, and the Javits federal building, along with assassinations of NY Senator Al D'Amato and Egyptian President Mubarak.

The terrorists would not have to succeed in flooding Lower Manhattan in order to succeed in creating a mass casualty attack, damaging the local economy, and causing billions in damage. Downplaying such threats is a dangerous game, and the terrorists have repeatedly shown themselves willing to attack high profile targets.

UPDATE:
CNN is reporting that their sources are informing them that the Holland Tunnel wasn't specifically named in the threat. Interesting. It will be interesting to see how the Daily News handles the news going forward. Other media outlets confirm that there was some kind of plot that US law enforcement disrupted, but the Daily News broke the story and put the Holland Tunnel out there.

The NYT also reports the terror plot discovery and that Sen. Schumer sees this as an instance where law enforcement and intel services were on the ball.

UPDATE:
Via Wizbang, apparently the tunnel threat was actually against the PATH system, which connects Lower Manhattan with New Jersey.

Update: According to Fox News Channel, the actual terror target was the NY-NJ Path Train System. The FBI will have a briefing at 1:00pm

One PATH line runs through the WTC complex - and flooding out the tunnel could flood the WTC bathtub, but not cause damage beyond that complex. A second line runs up to Herald Square (34th St.) A map of PATH stations can be found here.

Both Mrs. Lawhawk and I take the PATH system on a regular basis. I am not amused, and am not surprised. After all, terrorists have repeatedly attacked Port Authority assets. Blowing up the tunnels carrying the PATH trains is far more difficult than blowing up the vehicle tunnels - unless they were going to somehow get into the PATH workforce and infiltrate the system that way.

So, since the PATH system has been targeted, I'll reissue my call for PATH to hasten the construction of emergency exits at Christopher Street and 9th Street, which are antique deathtraps should a mass casualty attack occur at either station - there is only a single entry point into each of those two stations. There is a proposal to build the emergency exits, but that apparently still remains in a planning stage.

Others blogging: LaShawn Barber, Confederate Yankee, Blue Crab Boulevard, Gateway Pundit, LGF, Meryl Yourish.

UPDATE:
Still others blogging: Hot Air - who provides a link to the Fox News story.

Fox News also reports that while there are no direct al Qaeda links, there were some financial links between associates of Zarqawi and those involved in the plot here.

U.S. officials are not confirming any Al Qaeda link, although the New York Daily News, which reported that the attack was to focus on the Holland Tunnel, said the would-be terrorists allegedly had a pledge of financial and tactical support from Jordanian associates of top terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before he was killed in Iraq.

Wouldn't it be nice to know whether we could trace those terrorists' financial dealings around the world?AJ Strata speculates whether the NYT leak of the SWIFT program jeopardized the investigation into this plot. I'd wager that it did. So does the American Spectator. These terrorists need money to make their attacks happen, and if the SWIFT program was compromised, those terrorists just got a break - courtesy of the NYT.

CNN's latest version of their story provides that a Lebanese official notes that the Holland Tunnel and a bridge were targeted by the jihadis.

UPDATE:
Ranting Profs' Cori Dauber notes that Peter King claims to have known of this investigation for months but couldn't use it to prod the feds for more DHS funding for counter terror programs. Well, there's a good reason to keep quiet about such things - so to make sure that we can nab every one of the terrorists involved in the plot, but thanks to the NYT, that appears to have been short circuited.

Others blogging: Expose the Left, Stop the ACLU, Below the Beltway, and Outside the Beltway.

UPDATE:
Once again, this whole story revolves around leaks of information about the ongoing war effort. Was this leaked in response to the fact that one of the surveillance measures - the SWIFT program - was outed by the NYT, and the continuing investigation was thwarted? Good question. No clear answers.

What we do know is that one Amir al-Andalousi was arrested by Lebanese authorities for plotting a terror attack in NYC. He has links to Zarqawi and al Qaeda.

Flopping Aces notes with some irony the fact that Schumer has suddenly realized the benefit of listening in on terrorist communications and infiltrating terrorist hangouts online. Also, he notes that the FBI pretty much directly links this plot to al Qaeda.

Also blogging: Blogs for War, Vital Perspective, Hugh Hewitt, Rob Port, and The Real Ugly American.

Point Five adds a bit of levity to the matter.

UPDATE:
Seems that some folks are still not quite getting it. Glenn Greenwald, that would be you. You, and the other like minded folks you run with, think that the fact that the FBI uncovered a plot to blow up PATH, subways, and tunnels around NYC in its infancy isn't quite the threat that the right side of the 'sphere is making it out to be. Sorry, but that's a serious misreading of history. And that's not getting into the little spat between you and Charles for misreading his post.

The 1993 WTC bombers didn't just seek to blow up the WTC killing thousands. Their spiritual leader, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman exhorted his minions to jihad and to destroy NYC area landmarks. It was on the discovery of that plot that Rahman and others were arrested - and Rahman is serving life in prison for the conspiracy to plan and commit those attacks. Even his lawyer, Lynne Stewart, is going to be doing hard time, because she was passing secrets between Rahman and his followers in violation of a gag order.

Today's bomb plot mirrors the NYC landmarks attacks - which is what I noted in my initial posting. And this attack planning mirrors the 9/11 attacks in many ways, including using as many as 20 suicide bombers to blow up in and around the system.

The specific target was the PATH commuter trains that run in a tunnel under the Hudson River into New York City.

“This is a plot that would have involved martyrdom, explosives and certain of the tubes that connect New Jersey with lower Manhattan,” said Mark Mershon, Assistant Director-in-Charge of the FBI New York Field Office. “We’re not discussing the modality behind, beyond that.”

But law enforcement officials say the plotters had already accessed detailed blueprints and drawings of the PATH tunnels, available on the internet.

And like the London bombers, the plan was to load backpacks with explosives.

All 15 to 20 bombers were to board one car and detonate when the train was under the river, according to officials.

“There’s no question that they are vulnerable. With the right amount of explosives, the tunnel could be compromised,” said Gerry Hauer, former Director of New York City’s Office of Emergency Management and now an ABC News consultant.

Technorati: hammoud, tunnel terror plot, nyc, PATH, bloomberg, subways, holland tunnel.

Shutting Down OBL Search At CIA

Should this really surprise anyone? Well, it's a typical newsdump story that is released over a holiday to lessen its perceived impact.

The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

After all, the CIA has had a decade to track down Osama and has failed. Instead of trying to do the same thing over and over, another approach has to be taken.

I've got to believe one or more of the following is going on:

1) The CIA isn't actually shutting down the program, but is reconstituting it under a different program. The CIA is still looking for Osama, but the original program is being shutdown.

2) The CIA search team is being shut down and replaced by a search operated out of the NSA or DoD. Of the NSA or DoD, the Defense Department is the more likely scenario as they already have a task force designed to go after high value terrorist targets. Task Force 77 took out Zarqawi, and they've been tasked with the Osama mission as well. It's a joint forces operation, and they operate with their own intel gathering operations as well.

Others have found a couple of different rationales behind the shutdown. AJ Strata notes that the folks the Times spoke with aren't necessarily honest actors - they've got books and ulterior motives. Michael Scheuer for example. Blue Crab Boulevard thinks that this reorganization might be due to tunnel vision that developed within the group, and that meant the group lost focus of the big picture.

Security Watchtower sees this as a recognition that al Qaeda doesn't have the same capabilities that it once did.

The Sundries Shack finds that this makes sense because there's little use for yet another secret program that can be disclosed to the terrorists reading the New York Times.

Expect the usual suspects to scream and shout about the loss of focus, Bush lied, the war on terror is a sham, and the usual rhetoric that passes as fact with this news.

The Line Must Be Drawn

We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!

-Captain Jean-Luc Piccard, Star Trek: First Contact

There is a line that must be drawn, one that our enemies cannot cross without suffering the consequences of their actions. That goes for actions domestically as well as overseas.

Quite a few people think that the war in Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong place and at the wrong time. Some think that yesterday's revelations that the US disrupted a terror cell in Miami somehow undermines the credibility of taking the fight to the terrorists overseas in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet history is replete with examples of fighting enemies on their soil, who in turn seek to regain the offensive by trying to engage its opponent behind its lines. Sabotage is a common tactic in warfare. From the Illiad's recounting of the Trojan Horse to modern combat situations, subterfuge and actions behind enemy lines to disrupt communications, transportation links, etc. are part and parcel of military doctrine and strategy.

The Battle of the Bulge is a classic example of this strategy. The Allies were pushing their way towards Germany. Air strikes were being conducted against Germany proper on a daily basis and the Allies were grinding their way towards the German border. In response, the Germans made a daring attempt to crush the Allies on the Western Front in a plan to split the Allied lines in half and capture the Allies in a pincers move. It almost succeeded when Germans infiltrated behind Allied lines and caused all kinds of mayhem. The subterfuge worked perfectly, and while the airdrop was botched spreading the German paratroopers over a wide front, this mistake on the Germans' part actually made Allied Command think that there was a major air assault in progress and sent troops to bolster the rearguard, taking troops away from the front where the oncoming German armor was headed.

Today, we see terrorists operating outside the laws of war, hiding among civilian populations, and rejecting basic decency by purposefully using civilians as human shields from which to attack US, Iraqi, and coalition forces. Terrorism, such as bus or subway bombings, or hijackings are simply a tactic to project power and to spread fear and attack weak points in the hope of winning a victory unattainable on the battlefield.

Taking the fight to our enemies is the only prudent step. Failing to fight on the battlefields of our choice means that we'll be forced to fight ever more battles on the fields chosen by our enemies - which often means terrorist attacks on our own cities and those of our allies.

Iraq is a killing field - not for our soldiers but for al Qaeda, as repeated intercepted communications and captured documents reveal. Zarqawi (now at room temperature), Zawahiri, and even Osama himself have all noted the problems in Iraq and are trying to rally their forces to attack the US elsewhere (Darfur, Somolia, or even Pakistan) - if only to give al Qaeda in Iraq a breather to regroup and rearm.

Al Qaeda calculated that the US would not only get bogged down in Iraq, but that the US would lose the will to fight sooner than al Qaeda would run out of terrorists to throw at us. They'd seen the US cut and run in the past and believed that they would do so again. That was a huge miscalculation, perhaps aided by the media's ongoing pessimism about how well things are going in Iraq. [ed: could the media actually have done a great service to US forces by giving terrorists a false impression? No chance - see below]

The terrorists seem to have lots of help these days from the media, as the latest NYT expose on another US national security program to thwart terrorist financing through the international banking system. One that is completely legal, has worked well in the past, and was quite effective in figuring out terrorist financing patterns. Patterico has a wide ranging examination of the subject. We continue to witness media leaders like the New York Times decide what should be considered national secrets, and what should be released to the public - and hence to our enemies. Unveiling eavesdropping programs and other measures designed to obtain critical intel on our enemies is par for the course for the New York Times, and they truly believe that they are the new men in black. Above it. Over it. Outside the law altogether. They're the ones that make the final decision, and if the White House insists on holding the story, all the more reason to push it on page 1.

While ire should be directed at the Times, I think the real anger should be correctly placed on those individuals who are leaking the details of these programs. They are violating federal law at every opportunity, and have a willing partner at the major media outlets. What happens if the terrorists manage to exploit the knowledge that the papers have so graciously provided and carry out a terrorist act that would have otherwise been prevented had the terrorists not learned of them?

Imagine had the NYT published news stories in 1943 and 1944 regardline Ultra and Enigma, the codes that the Allies had broken enabling them to intercept communciations? Or maybe outline the importance of Navajo language in the Pacific theater for US forces? That kind of behavior would not have been tolerated then, so why is it being tolerated by anyone now?

Others noting the media madness in releasing classified and sensitive information: Instapundit, who relays the serious damage done by revealing this program. Michelle Malkin has a huge roundup of reaction against the ongoing onslaught of classified information leaked to the NYT and other papers. Others providing news and views: John Hawkins, Bizzyblog, AJ Strata, Macranger, Stop the ACLU, Group Intel, The Anchoress, Flopping Aces, Pundit Guy, Gina Cobb, Blue Crab Boulevard, Hot Air, Sister Toldjah, Confederate Yankee, Ed Morrissey, and Kim at Wizbang.

How's That Debate Going?

Hot Air is covering the votes today on setting deadlines for withdrawing troops from Iraq. There are several competing Democrat plans being put to a vote.

Allah has named them:

Cut and run lost 86-13. This is the Kerry amendment.

In an 86-13 vote, the Senate turned back a Democratic proposal that would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, with redeployments beginning this year.

Cut and jog. This is the amendment that is currently being debated and voting will commence shortly. It's an approach cobbled together by Democrat party leaders, and would call for withdrawals to begin by the end of the year, with an undetermined end date.

The alternative plan, winning without any timetables for withdrawal, was not considered by Democrats. Apparently they've failed to learn from history and that whenever politics gets in the way of military decision-making, the end result is very bad.

Joe Lieberman has already come out and said he would not support any of the timetable amendments. Good for him. Of course that's bad news for him vis-a-vis the anti-war Left, and possibly his reelection bid - but he's standing by the courage of his convictions and his experience having visited Iraq on a number of occasions to see the situation for himself.

Today's voting is supposed to be showcasing potential Democrat candidates for 2008 - at least according to the WaPo. Well, it does provide yet another opportunity for a soundbite generator to operate. But whether anyone actually thinks that these votes will shed light on who has a chance in winning in 2008 is reaching. There's lots of time, and plenty of issues to come that may end up having a much greater influence on voting patterns than today's votes.

UPDATE:
Cut and jog lost 60-39. As Ed Morrissey notes:

UPDATE 10:53 CT: Bill Nelson of Florida voted against the Levin resolution, crossing party lines. The so-called "cut and jog" appears headed to defeat as well. Ben Nelson of Nebraska also voted against it -- but of course, Linc Chafee (R-RI) voted to support it. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) also voted against it. So far all of the red-state Democrats appear to be coming out against it.

10:59 - Joe Lieberman voted against the Levin resolution. While that remains consistent with Lieberman's previous support for the war and the long-term strategy -- recall that he alone among his caucus acknowledged the progress made in Iraq, even before Zarqawi was killed -- it impresses me that he did not bend to help his primary challenge from the Left.

Levin's resolution failed 60-39. This should conclude the debate over the long-term strategy in Congress. Both houses have now spoken, and both houses have supported the White House strategy in Iraq.

11:09 - Ben Nelson of Nebraska, not Bob (fixed it above). Thanks to The Influence Peddler for the quick catch! The Defense Authorization Bill now faces a cloture vote. If debate ends on this bill, it should put an end to any further exploration of panicked retreat for the foreseeable future. Cloture appears to have a wide margin of support and should pass on a wide bipartisan basis.

UPDATE:
The roll call on Kerry's cut and run amendment shows the following voting in favor of the cut and run:
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Wyden (D-OR)

(ht: BIG at LGF)

UPDATE:
The roll call on the Levin amendment can be found here.

Zawahiri Struggles to Rally Troops

The 3-minute video, which was posted on Thursday on a Web site often used by militant groups, showed Osama bin Laden's right-hand man speaking directly to the camera with an automatic rifle propped up behind him.

There was no indication when it was made, but its posting coincides with some of the bloodiest violence in Afghanistan since U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban government in 2001, with almost 1,000 violent deaths this year, including 47 American troops and 18 other foreign soldiers.

``Muslim brothers in Afghanistan, and especially in Kabul, stand as one with the mujahideen (Muslim fighters) so that the invading forces might be expelled,'' he said, referring to the Islamist militias such as the Taliban and al Qaeda that are battling U.S. and other foreign troops in Afghanistan.

``Don't trust these infidel invaders or their agents who want to transform you into oppressed, enslaved people,'' he said.

``Therefore, I call on the Muslims in Kabul and Afghanistan, to stand united for the sake of God before the invading forces ... I urge them to confront the infidel occupation and to do their duty toward defending their faith and honor.''

An international force led by NATO is preparing to move into the southern heartland of the Taliban, which will allow the United States to pull out about 3,000 of the 23,000 troops it has in Afghanistan.

In the video, Zawahri cited unspecified U.S. ``aggressions'' in Afghan cities as examples of foreign ``crimes against Islam'' and mentioned what he called the ``ridiculing of our holy Prophet by the Italian, Danish and French,'' referring to the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad which caused an uproar earlier this year.

Zawahiri has been taking a much higher profile as of late considering that Zarqawi is roasting in hell and al Qaeda has been taking quite a beating in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's trying to rally Afghans to his cause in Afghanistan, claiming that they should rally around to fight the foreign fighters - claiming that they don't respect Islam.

Sorry, but many Afghans see al Qaeda as foreign fighters as well, who have done nothing but bring misery and suffering to their country. Al Qaeda has sided with the Taliban who are desperately trying to make a comeback, but are failing in spectacular fashion - losing every single engagement with coalition and Afghan forces. A very large percentage of the aforementioned 1,000 dead in Afghanistan have been al Qaeda and Taliban, which the Times is underplaying in the story.

All Zawahiri can do at this point is try and convince someone, anyone really, to fight under his banner, and it simply isn't happening.

Also, this message appears to be nothing but recycling the same message delivered by the disembodied voice of Osama exhorting jihad against peacekeepers in Darfur and the Horn of Africa.

They're Gonna Need Another Number 2

With Zarqawi gone, al Qaeda spent a few days trying to figure out who should replace him. Well, in that time, coalition forces in conjunction with Iraqi forces rolled up hundreds of insurgents and terrorists operating across Iraq including a number of highly placed al Qaeda terrorists. Overall, more than 100 were killed and hundreds more were captured.

CENTCOM acknowledges that among those captured was a very high level al Qaeda terrorist and three of his close associates. Another raid resulted in the death of Zarqawi's "right-hand man" in a raid in Yusifiya on Friday. Iraqi Mansur Suleiman al-Mashhadani was "a key leader in al-Qaeda" and could have succeeded Zarqawi.

Others noting the successful campaign against the terrorists: Suitably Flip (who has a good roundup), Politburo Diktat, AJ Strata, Gulf Coast Pundit, Sister Toldjah, Ninth State, and Liberty and Justice.

Condolences

Iraqi officials are reporting that they've recovered the bodies of two US soldiers who were captured in an assault on a checkpoint south of Baghdad.

A spokesman for the American military confirmed in a televised interview that Iraqi forces had found two bodies, but said that they had not been identified.

Ibrahim Obeidi, a spokesman for the Iraqi ministry of defense, said that soldiers had discovered the two bodies early this morning in the village of Jarf as-Sakhr, which is on the outskirts of Yusufiya, where the abduction took place.

On Monday, an Islamic militant group linked to Al Qaeda had said it had captured two American soldiers listed as missing, but it offered no proof, and American military officials remained skeptical.

The two soldiers disappeared Friday night in an ambush southwest of Baghdad, and the military has been searching vigorously in and around Yusufiya with a force of 8,000 American and Iraqi troops.

The captured soldiers were identified by the military on Monday as Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore. A third soldier, Specialist David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass., was killed when insurgents attacked the three at a traffic checkpoint.

Regarding the search for the two soldiers who have been missing since Friday, a message posted Monday on a Web site of the Council of Holy Warriors, which says it oversees Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and seven other militant groups, said, "Our brothers in the military wing" had seized the soldiers near Yusufiya, the town where the military began its search. "We will provide you with more details on this incident in the next few days," the group said.

My condolences go out to the friends and families of the soldiers who were killed.

And as for the al Qaeda message, I expect that we're supposed to see or hear a video of the executions of the soldiers because that's what al Qaeda does. If we don't get a video, that might suggest that the terrorists didn't have the time or means to produce one and considering the lengths that they went to in order to attack the checkpoint, divide the US forces into two elements and capture the men at the checkpoint, their intent was to create a video for wide release. Otherwise, it was a waste of resources on their part to attack a heavily armed checkpoint in a manner that would reveal more terrorists. The ensuing manhunt could also reveal more insurgent and terrorist cells and that's a risk that the terrorists simply can't deal with on the back of the Zarqawi raids.

UPDATE:
Apparently the bodies of the two soldiers were mutilated and booby trapped.

The bodies also had been desecrated, and a visual identification was impossible -- part of the reason DNA testing was being conducted to verify their identities, the sources said.

A tip from Iraqi civilians led officials to the bodies, military sources told CNN. The discovery was made about 7:30 p.m. Monday.

Not only were the bodies booby-trapped, but homemade bombs also lined the road leading to the victims, an apparent effort to complicate recovery efforts and target recovery teams, the sources said.

It took troops 12 hours to clear the area of roadside bombs. One of the bombs exploded, but there were no injuries.

The terrorists know that US troops don't leave their own behind, and will go to extraordinary lengths to recover those caught by the enemy. The terrorists are showing that they're going to take advantage of that fact, by trying to inflict the maximum number of casualties on those seeking to rescue and recover soldiers caught by the terrorists.

Is Document Recovered From Zarqawi Raid Fake?

I wrote about the strategy document and its potential impact on the conflict here. However, there is reason to believe that the document is fake. Michael Ledeen gives his rationale here. Are we looking at another fake, but accurate situation?

Iraq War Debate or Soundbite Generator: You Decide

In a move Democrats criticized as gamesmanship, Senate Republicans brought up the withdrawal measure and quickly dispatched it — for now — on a 93-6 vote.

The proposal would have allowed "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in Iraq in 2007.

Across Capitol Hill in a daylong House debate, Republicans defended the Iraq war as a key part of the global fight against terrorism while Democrats assailed President Bush's war policies and called for a new direction in the conflict.

"When our freedom is challenged, Americans do not run," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in remarks laden with references to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"This is a war that is a grotesque mistake," countered House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. She called for a fresh strategy — "one that will make us safer, strengthen our military, and restore our reputation in the world."

When a Senate vote to withdraw troops from Iraq is defeated by a 93-6 count, is it a sign that there is an actual debate on the issue or is it simply a way for Democrats to get up before Congress and provide a bunch of soundbites for the upcoming election? The House is expected to vote on a similar measure today.

Democrats complain that the Republicans put the matter to a vote, but all it does is point out the serious inconsistencies in the Democrats' position on Iraq. They're being repeatedly forced to decide whether to show their support for the war by voting for these measures, or vote on measures that outline precisely what the likes of John Murtha and John Kerry call for - an immediate withdrawal of troops or a repositioning of troops to areas outside of Iraq leaving only some minimum figure to be drawn down over time.

And each time the vote comes up, the Democrats vote to kill the measure - in an overwhelming fashion. Is it any wonder that the anti-war left is throwing hissy fits each time this happens? They keep seeing their so-called standard bearers getting hoisted upon their petards and watching their position get no support whatsoever when it actually counts - in the actual votes.

The Democrats claim that they're for a fresh approach, but can't offer anything up other than say they'd do something differently. It isn't exactly a good time to make that argument when US forces dispatched Zarqawi, and followed that up with coalition raids on hundreds of sites netting even more terrorists and intel. And the Iraqi security forces are operating with increasing efficiency, allowing US forces to provide more guidance and less front line roles.

The Republican position is staked upon winning in Iraq, which stands in contrast to how the Democrats are framing the matter, especially by their most vocal members, who see the current situation as one of defeat and despair. Well, there is defeat and despair, but it's among Democrats who are seeing success in Iraq undermining their chances to win elections in November.

UPDATE:
The House measure passed 256-153. CNN notes that "the measure labels the Iraq war part of a global fight on terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest." In other word, it extends upon what Vice President Cheney said yesterday.

The vote was pretty much along party lines, and goes further on tying Iraq to the larger war on terror campaign than what the Senate measure, which hewed closely to the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in a speedy manner.

The House vote decries the setting of arbitrary dates for withdrawal or redeployment. That's as it should be. Why give our enemies a cheap and easy victory by letting them know when the US will leave the area - and let them know that if they simply hold out through a set date, they'll win by default.

UPDATE:
Here's the roll call for the House vote. 42 Democrats broke ranks to join with Republicans in approving the measure while 3 Republicans broke with the party to join with Democrats opposing the measure.

Gathering Steam

The Zarqawi airstrike and subsequent raids on 17 compounds has snowballed into 452 raids, killing more than 100 insurgents, and obtaining yet more intel. Was the Zarqawi raid a victory? Absolutely. In every which way imaginable.

Among the documents recovered from the Zarqawi raid is this particular document:

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults.

6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

In other words, Zarqawi and his advisors knew the writing was on the wall - they were losing and had to figure out some way to regain the advantage. Unfortunately for them, they were killed in the airstrike before they were able to implement what to do next. The follow up raids have a snowballing effect - resulting in even more intel, captured insurgents, and even discovering kidnap victims and arms caches.

So what does al Qaeda do? They've announced Zarqawi's successor. Bad news for him is that the US has identified him as well. It's Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the same guy that experts thought would be Zarqawi's successor last week. It's a pseudonym, but they've got a photo and something to work with and it's only a matter of time before al-Masri meets Zarqawi in hell.

At the same time, the Pentagon has announced that the 2,500th soldier has died in the Iraq campaign. My thoughts and prayers go out to all those who lost loved ones in this conflict, but know that they have done good work in eliminating a genocidal dictator and improved the lives of millions of people by giving them hope.

Bali Bomber Released From Prison

I have a bad feeling about this. A real bad feeling. Radical Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar Bashir was released from an Indonesian jail after serving reduced time for links to the 2002 Bali bombings. He's completely unrepentant and states plainly:

"I will maintain my struggle to uphold sharia (Islamic law), he added, before getting into a black van.

That would include jihad - the violent struggle kind, not the deeply intense personal kind of struggle.

Seen by the West as the spiritual head of the al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiah (JI) regional militant network, Bashir was convicted of being part of a conspiracy behind the Bali bombings that killed 202 people, many of them Australian tourists.

In Australia, Prime Minister John Howard told parliament: "I want (Indonesia's politicians) to understand from me, on behalf of the government, how extremely disappointed, even distressed, millions of Australians will be at the release."

Brian Deegan, whose son Josh was one of 88 Australians killed in the Bali attack, told Sky television: "Abu Bashir really is to us what Osama bin Laden was to the Americans."

In Jakarta, U.S. embassy spokesman Max Kwak said: "we were deeply disappointed that a person convicted of a 'sinister conspiracy' was given such a short prison sentence."

His sentence was originally 30 months, and even that was reduced on 'good behavior.' I think his sentence came out to a couple of days per victim killed in the Bali bombings. And JI isn't just a regional terrorist group, but one with significant ties to al Qaeda and espouses the same brand of militant Islam.

Well done Indonesia. As we saw with Zarqawi - revolving door justice is no justice at all. Zarqawi had been released from Jordanian prison in 1999 in an amnesty following the death of King Hussein. Zarqawi proceeded to Iraq where he became one of the most ruthless and bloodthirsty terrorists in the world, with the death of thousands on his head. Will we be saying the same thing of Abu Bakar Bashir in a few years? I pray that isn't the case, but know full well that we may be hearing about how he was the mastermind or inspiration for some other mass casualty attack in South East Asia/Pacific Rim.

UPDATE:
Doing the math, this murderous bastard did 3.81 days ((26months*30 days)/202 victims)of time for each of the 202 people he was found responsible for murdering. Yeah, that's justice alright.

UPDATE:
Others taking note of Abu Bakar Bashir's release and his glorious reception by his followers, which stands in stark contrast to the muted cries of horror from the families of the 202 victims who were murdered by terrorists affiliated with, and who took direction from Bashir: Little Green Footballs, Clarity & Resolve, Global Security, and Don Singleton.

Step Away From the Ledge

There will be no Fitzmas. There will be no Rove perp walk. Karl Rove will not be indicted, much to the chagrin of the rabid left. More to the point, there was no crime committed by anyone actually 'leaking' the name of Valerie Plame. The only indictment obtained by Fitzgerald was for obstruction of justice and perjury for Scooter Libby, who contradicted himself in testimony before the Grand Jury.

AJ Strata calls this quitting while behind. Stop the ACLU notes that the DUers are shocked. Well, if they weren't blinded by their partisan hackery, they would have seen that the facts simply didn't support any contention that the alleged crime of leaking the identity of a CIA agent had occurred.

Tom Maguire has a good roundup and notes that while he had considered a Rove indictment, he had been lengthening the odds as time went on because Fitzgerald simply didn't have a case and couldn't get anyone to flip on anyone else.

Others noting the Left's bitter disappointment, and otherwise commenting on the lack of Fitzmas: Tigerhawk, Don Surber, Rick Moran, and Hot Air.

Scott Ott at Scrappleface has the best headline of the week:

Rove Cleared, Zarqawi Dead, GOP Doomed. Poor Jason Leopold, who still clings to hope beyond all hope that a Rove indictment will come. No truth for you.

UPDATE:
Decision 08 has a roundup of the top 10 themes running at the Lefty websites. From conspriacy to bad timing, with a smattering of hopeful holdouts, the Left has it covered.

UPDATE:
Christopher Rose, of megafirm Proskauer Rose LLP, who represents Wilson and Plame, issued a statement today:

We have become aware of the communication between Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Luskin concerning Karl Rove's status in the criminal investigation. We have no first-hand knowledge of the reason for the communication or what further developments in the criminal investigation it may signal. While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons.

Last time I checked, truth is an absolute defense to the tort of defamation. Unless they've got some novel legal theory cooked up (and would be a dubious one at that), this is sound and fury signifying a big nothing. It's a pandering to the holdouts on the Left hoping for some kind of legal action against Rove (and in effect Bush) for Plame's 'outing.'

Can you imagine the circus surrounding any legal action taken by Plame or Wilson against Rove or Cheney or anyone else in the Bush Administration for that matter? Those folks would have a field day with a witness list that would include everyone from Matt Cooper to Judith Miller, Woodward to Russert, and that's before getting into the likes of Armitage and Novak.

No, this statement is nothing more than saving face - knowing full well that there will be no further legal action because it can't possibly help their cause.

UPDATE:
Roger L. Simon asks the salient question that has remained unanswered all these years - who sent Joe Wilson to Africa and why was he chosen.

Super Fun Power Hour has the mother of all Rovian roundups.

Jeff Goldstein and Pajamas Media note this has been a pretty bad week for the left.

Others blogging: Big Dog's Weblog, Politburo Diktat, Sister Toldjah, Flopping Aces, Confederate Yankee, Pretend Pundit.