What's The Strategy Here?

Remember when Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize?

Ironic, that:

Resarch by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has reported just 4 percent of US drone strikes in Pakistan have killed people identified as members of al-Qaeda.

Research by the London-based bureau found that only 111 out of the total 2,379 drone victims killed in Pakistan since 2004 was "a senior commander of any armed group". Just 84 victims were identified as al-Qaeda militants.

Following the 400th drone strike on 11 October, the report provides a damning assessment of the CIA drone program in Pakistan.

"More than a third of them were not designated a rank, and almost 30 percent are not even linked to a specific group. Only 84 are identified as members of al-Qaeda – less than 4 percent of the total number of people killed," the report said.

The investigative bureau's Naming The Dead project has been monitoring and collating research on the identities and backgrounds of US drone victims in Pakistan since June 2004.

Indiscriminately dropping drone bombs, taking the fight to the "terrorists" - and creating many more terrorists in the bargain:

President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama met in the Oval Office Friday with Malala Yousafzai, the Pakastani girl who was shot in the head on her school bus by Taliban gunmen for criticizing their rule, including banning education for girls.

The White House says the first couple invited Malala -- the youngest ever nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize -- to the White House "to thank her for her inspiring and passionate work on behalf of girls education in Pakistan."

In a statement, the White House says the United States "joins with the Pakistani people and so many around the world to celebrate Malala’s courage and her determination to promote the right of all girls to attend school and realize their dreams."

In a statement released after the meeting, Malala said she was honored to meet with Obama, but that she told him she's worried about the effect of U.S. drone strikes. (The White House statement didn't mention that part.)

"I thanked President Obama for the United States' work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees," she said in the statement. "I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact."

In other circumstances, were Malala Yousafzai in Pakistan in the wrong place at the wrong time, Obama might have her killed in a drone strike.

Not purposely, of course, but intent is not the point here.

The point is what actually happens as a result of Obama's drone war.

The goal of the drone policy is ostensibly to stop terrorists from targeting the U.S. and it's allies.

The actual outcome of that policy is to fuel more terrorism against the U.S. and it's allies.

The cynic in me wonders if running an Endless War, with more "terrorists" being created every year as the U.S. indiscriminately drops drones on people, not particularly caring who they hit, isn't the actual goal.

Nothing keeps a government and the elite that supports it in power like Endless War.

And surely things are not getting better.

The more drones we drop, the more "terrorists" we seem to create.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/11/205176/obama-and-first-lady-meet-with.html#storylink=cpy

Bill Hammond Exposes Cuomo's New-Found Interest In Fighting Terrorism

Nice job by Bill Hammond in the Daily News calling "bullshit!" on Cuomo:

The words “terror,” “terrorism” and “security” do not appear in transcripts of any of Cuomo’s first three State of the State speeches. He used them this January to note that he was hiring former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly to help him establish an emergency preparedness college, to address not just terror threats, but also natural disasters.

As recently as May, Cuomo created a commission to “reinvent” New York City’s mass transit system — which is on everybody’s short list of likely terror targets. Yet his mandate for the panel made no mention of preparing for bombs or poison gas — only weather-related threats such as hurricanes and flooding. Nor do any of the commission members seem to have especially notable expertise in security.

Four months later, roughly coinciding with both the 9/11 anniversary and the traditional start of campaign season, the trajectory changed. Cuomo organized a series of high-profile events that simultaneously reminded New Yorkers that terrorism remains a real threat while attempting to show that he was on the job.

He met with federal and local security officials. He announced joint exercises and beefed-up enforcement with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. In the wake of reports of a terror plot, he very publicly rode the E train to show he was not afraid, a level of courage demonstrated on a daily basis by millions of ordinary New Yorkers.

But his most attention-grabbing step of all was a Defense Department-sponsored flight to Afghanistan with a bipartisan group of four governors, three of whom are up for reelection. The schedule included briefings from military officials and chances to pose in armored vehicles and with wounded soldiers.

From no mention of the issue for the first three years of his governorship to an election-season focus on the issue, replete with photo ops with wounded vets in Afghanistan.

And yet Cuomo has the audacity to claim his opponent, Rob Astorino, is playing politics with security when Astorino criticized Cuomo's anti-terrorism gamesmanship.

Cuomo's full of shit on most issues, but this anti-terrorism issue is especially bullshit-laded.

Cuomo Rides E Train To Catch Terrorists

Go get 'em, Sheriff Andy:

New Yorkers had just better hope that the terrorists looking to blow up the E train that Cuomo rode today are not running against him in a Democratic Primary.

Because if they are, they could be right in front of his face and he wouldn't notice them:

Anybody Buying This Threat?

The Neo-Con News:

The Iraqi prime minister sent a scare through New York City by declaring Thursday that the Islamic State was plotting to launch attacks on subways in the U.S. and in Paris.

Haider al-Abadi dropped the bombshell during a brief meeting with reporters at the United Nations.

“Today, while I’m here, I’m receiving accurate reports from Baghdad, where there was an arrest of a few elements, and there are networks planning from inside Iraq” to attack “in the metros of Paris and the U.S.,” Abadi said.

The plotters are ISIS fighters from France and the U.S. who are currently in Iraq, he said.

“Yes,” Abadi answered when asked if the ISIS attacks were imminent.

“No,” he replied when asked if the plot had been thwarted.

The Iraqi prime minister divulged no other details about the alleged scheme to cause mayhem in the U.S. and France, two countries that have been leading the charge against murderous ISIS militants.

Al-Abadi has his own reasons why he wants Americans in fear over the so-called ISIS threat.

Same goes for Cuomo and Christie, both of whom have jumped on "security" in the past month as a campaign issue.

This has all the earmarks of the "threats" the city faced in the run-up to Bush's re-election in 2004, a "vague" threat warning that politicians running for elections jump on as an election issue even as another wing of the government - the feds - say they have heard of no specific threat to the subways.

Of course New York City is a terrorist target and the subway system one of the more vulnerable areas to attack, so any threat should be taken seriously.

But the rhetoric around this, from the Iraqi prime minister to the New York and New Jersey governors, smells of election year politics to me.

Andrew Cuomo Looks To Be The New George Bush

Ever since that trip to Israel over the summer, Cuomo's been burnishing his "national security" credentials.

Here's another example:

Although saying there is "no specific threat" of a terror attack, Gov. Cuomo announced on Friday that he is calling up hundreds of National Guard troops and other personnel to beef up security in New York.

Summoning reporters and legislative leaders to his midtown office, Cuomo said a comprehensive new security plan will be implemented to cover airports, transit hubs and large gathering points across the region.

He declined to give specifics of the plan until he formally unveils it with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie next week.

Cuomo, who is running for re-election, said "it is undeniable that New York is a possible target of terrorist activity," either "in retaliation... or as an offensive gesture."

However, he acknowledged that, "We have no specific threat" of terrorists plotting an attack.   

“This is just a general precaution given the obvious situation and obvious facts,” Cuomo told reporters, after discussing the situation with legislative leaders.

It was Cuomo's second media briefing on security issues in five days, activity that comes as he is ramping up his general election campaign against Republican Rob Astorino. The ability to command media attention through official duties is an advantage that incumbents almost always have over challengers. 

Cuomo, Christie and Mayor de Blasio met earlier this week with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. The group pledged to step up preparedness and security amid fears that ISIS and other extremist groups would launch terror attacks in the area in response to President Obama authorizing a military campaign against the group.

“There will be hundreds of people, additional people, deployed across the system,” Cuomo said Friday. “There will be National Guard who will be called up.”

Cuomo said the short-term costs of the plan will be in the “tens of millions of dollars” and will be paid for in next year’s budget.

“This state and this metropolitan area will never have been as well protected as it will be when this plan is in operation,” Cuomo said.

No specific threat, just "a general precaution given the obvious situation and obvious facts” says the governor running for re-election as he calls a special presser to announce his security plan that he's doing jointly with pal Christie, who's running for president and also looking to burnish his national security credentials.

I guess I'm just getting cynical in my old age, but I remember back in 2004 when the Bushies raised the terror alert every other month while Bush was running his re-election campaign based on national security and keeping the country safe from terrorism (never mind that Bush was president for 9/11 and completely ignored the warning signs beforehand about it.)

This Cuomo/Christie anti-terrorism campaign has the same political feel that the 2003-2004 terror alert manipulations had.

That doesn't mean the NYC area isn't a terrorism target and the politicians in charge aren't right to try and protect people and proparty as best they can.

Just that the rhetoric and press statements around this anti-terror campaign have the feel of a political campaign too.

As I noted when Cuomo admonished his Democratic opponent, Zephyr Teachout, over her staying out of the Mideast conflict, more and more it seems Andrew Cuomo has decided to wrap himself in the veneer of George W. Bush.

Cuomo Plays 9/11 Card In Primary Contest

Governor Cuomo must be more concerned about the Democratic Primary vote next Tuesday than his campaign's letting on if he felt the need to play the "Vote For Zephyr Teachout and terrorists will kill you!" card.

That's what he did yesterday, sounding very much like George W. Bush:

Gov. Cuomo stopped short of bashing his primary rival Zephyr Teachout for refusing to take a position on Israel, but said anyone who doesn't think the Middle Eastern conflict is a New York problem is "living in a state of denial."

Teachout, who is running against Cuomo in the Democratic primary, has declined to state her position on Israel's decision to launch attacks in the Gaza Strip.

Without mentioning Teachout by name, Cuomo said anyone who thinks the conflict is just an Israeli problem is engaging in the "ostrich strategy."

"We went through 9-11. We [as New Yorkers] have a special sensitivity to terrorism ... We have a special connection to Israel," Cuomo said after a closed door meeting with national Jewish leaders to discuss his 29-hour trip to Israel last month.

Asked specifically about Teachout's silence on the matter, Cuomo declined to comment directly but said, "Any New Yorker who doesn't understand that Israel's fight is our fight is living not in the state of New York but in the state of denial."

...

He said the violence is the Middle East is "not just Israel's problem."

"It's democracies versus extremism and terrorism. And Israel is a target because they're a democracy," said Cuomo, adding that the enemies of Israel are also anti-European and anti-American.

"What is over there is going to be over here. And it's going to be over here much sooner than we think," said Cuomo.

Reread Cuomo's statements, then close your eyes and think back to the time when George W. Bush told us the United States was attacked by terrorists on 9/11 because "They hate us for our freedoms!" and ran a re-election campaign that essentially argued everybody would die if John Kerry were elected president in 2004.

Doesn't it sound like Cuomo's framing this 2014 election the same way and arguing the same thing about a vote for Zephyr Teachout?

Clearly he's looking to shore up the pro-Israel vote here with his staunch support of the Israelis and that's fine - politicians play to constituencies and ethnic groups for support all of the time, nothing wrong with Cuomo doing it.

But I think it's a mark of his desperation that he uses the kind of language the Bush campaign used in 2004 to scare people away from John Kerry.

Does he really need to make it sound like a vote for Zephyr Teachout is a vote for terrorism?

Because that's what I hear when he says "What is over there is going to be over here. And it's going to be over here much sooner than we think."

Teachout did address the issue afterwards:

Zephry Teachout said if she's elected governor she will work to maintain New York's "special" relationship with Israel, but won't be wading into any foreign policy issues as leader of the state.

“New York has a very special relationship with Israel, and Israel was founded here [at the United Nations]," she said at a press event in Manhattan.

She added, "As governor it will be part of my job to be supporting that relationship, but I’m not running for president and I’m not going to second guess the president or the secretary of state on foreign policy issues.”

Seems like a reasonable position to me.

I think a New Yorker can vote for Zephyr Teachout and not worry they're voting for terrorism too.

No matter what George W., er, Andrew M. Cuomo says.

The Politics Of The Terrorism Alerts

Just two links I wish to post tonight.

The first is a New York Magazine article from Mark Green in August 2011 chronicling how he lost the 2001 election Mike Bloomberg.

The second is a link to the NY Daily News and a little bit of the story:

The terrorist threat that forced the closure of 22 embassies in the Middle East was “the most serious in the last several years” and eerily reminiscent of the leadup to 9/11, top U.S. lawmakers said Sunday.

 

Many questions remain about the nature of the threat, adding to the alarm that extends from Washington to embassies in the Middle East and Africa, 19 of which will be closed through Saturday.

 

...

Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.) said intelligence officials had heard possible dates of the attack.

“The threat was specific as to how enormous it was going to be and also that certain dates were given,” King said on ABC’s “This Week,” adding that the most serious threats came out of Yemen.

The assumption is that [the attack is] most likely to happen in the Middle East at one of the embassies but there’s no guarantee at all,” King said. “It could be Europe, the United States. It could be a series of combined attacks ... We have to ready for everything.”

Just something to keep an eye on as we get closer to Primary Day.

Had 9/11 not occurred, it is probable Bloomberg would have lost the election and we might never have heard from him again.

Of course the attacks did occur and one of the consequences was that Bloomberg won the election.

You can bet the Lhota campaign is looking very closely at these terror alerts.

It is a long shot for a Republican to win the mayor's race this, but one of the ways they could win is if they get to use the politics of terrorism once again to persuade citizens that only they can keep New Yorkers safe.

I would think with these alerts being issued - the most serious alerts since the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks two years ago - the politics of terrorism will be on the GOP campaign short list of topics to come up during the November campaign.

Lord knows, I've gotten very cynical around terror alerts, especially after Bush wrapped himelf in the whole thing in 2004, but I am also aware that the Boston bombings put a slightly different gloss on these alerts this weekend.

Boston is fresh in people's memories and terror alerts can still strike fear in people's hearts when something like Boston is so close in the past.

Just something to keep an eye on as the campaign goes on - how and when the GOP uses the terrorism issue.

They will use it, it's something they like to use, and you can be sure Giuliani, Lhota's old boss, will get trotted out for just that kind of messaging to the public.

Maybe it won't mean much this time around.

But it is something to keep in mind.

Researching How To Cook Lentils Gets A Woman A Visit From The Police For Terrorism

Because we now live in a complete and total police/surveillance state:

Michele Catalano, who lives in Long Island, New York, said her web searches for pressure cookers, her husband's hunt for backpacks, and her "news junkie" son's craving for information on the Boston bombings had combined somewhere in the internet ether to create a "perfect storm of terrorism profiling".

Members of what she described as a "joint terrorism task force" descended on Catalano's home on Wednesday. A spokesman for the FBI told to the Guardian on Thursday that its investigators were not involved in the visit, but that "she was visited by Nassau County police department … They were working in conjunction with Suffolk County police department."

Catalano, a writer for indie music and politics magazine Death and Taxes wrote:

What happened was this: At about 9:00 am, my husband, who happened to be home yesterday, was sitting in the living room with our two dogs when he heard a couple of cars pull up outside. He looked out the window and saw three black SUVs in front of our house; two at the curb in front and one pulled up behind my husband's Jeep in the driveway, as if to block him from leaving.

Six gentleman in casual clothes emerged from the vehicles and spread out as they walked toward the house, two tow ard the backyard on one side, two on the other side, two toward the front door.

A million things went through my husband's head. None of which were right. He walked outside and the men greeted him by flashing badges. He could see they all had guns holstered in their waistbands.

"Are you [name redacted]?" one asked while glancing at a clipboard. He affirmed that was indeed him, and was asked if they could come in. Sure, he said.

They asked if they could search the house, though it turned out to be just a cursory search. They walked around the living room, studied the books on the shelf (nope, no bomb making books, no Anarchist Cookbook), looked at all our pictures, glanced into our bedroom, pet our dogs. They asked if they could go in my son's bedroom but when my husband said my son was sleeping in there, they let it be.

At this point, Catalano said, the police were "peppering my husband with questions".

"Where is he from? Where are his parents from? They asked about me, where was I, where do I work, where do my parents live. Do you have any bombs, they asked."

It was at this point that the conversation took a delightfully culinary turn, with quinoa making an unlikely appearance in the FBI's inquiries:

Do you own a pressure cooker? My husband said no, but we have a rice cooker. Can you make a bomb with that? My husband said no, my wife uses it to make quinoa. What the hell is quinoa, they asked.

The joint terrorism task force did not press Catalano's husband on the dilemma facing liberals over whether quinoa consumption is ethically sound – many Bolivians can no longer afford their staple food now everyone in Brooklyn is eating it.

"By this point they had realized they were not dealing with terrorists," Catalano said.
Still, she was left worried by the visit, which she attributes to her family's internet history.

I felt a sense of creeping dread take over. What else had I looked up? What kind of searches did I do that alone seemed innocent enough but put together could make someone suspicious? Were they judging me because my house was a mess (Oh my god, the joint terrorism task force was in my house and there were dirty dishes in my sink!). Mostly I felt a great sense of anxiety.

This is where we are at. Where you have no expectation of privacy. Where trying to learn how to cook some lentils could possibly land you on a watch list. Where you have to watch every little thing you do because someone else is watching every little thing you do.

All I know is if I'm going to buy a pressure cooker in the near future, I'm not doing it online.

I'm scared. And not of the right things.

If you're not scared of all the surveillance and police paramilitary action these days, you're not paying enough attention.

You can bet the government is watching everything you do these days.

Everything.

Even looking up lentil recipes.

1984 is here.

Bloomberg: We Have To Shred The Constitution In Order To Save Ourselves

Our inevitable post-9/11 slide into an authoritarian state run by plutocrats continues:

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Mr. Bloomberg, who has come under fire for the N.Y.P.D.’s monitoring of Muslim communities and other aggressive tactics, said the rest of the country needs to learn from the attacks.

“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.

“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to,” he said.

It never seems to occur to the plutocrats and other Surveillance State functionaries that part of the reason why "we live in a very dangerous world" is because U.S. foreign policy makes it so.

Think of the ways our laws and interpretation of the Constitution have changed since 9/11.

We now condone torture.

The president says he has the right to assassinate anyone at any time for any reason, so long as that person is a "terrorist."

We hold "terrorists" or those we suspect are terrorists but can prove are so without a reasonable doubt in perpetuity in Guantanamo.

We drop drone bombs every week onto suspected terrorists all over the world, often killing innocents in the fallout.

Are we safer because of these acts and policies?

Or do we end up radicalizing many people, some of whom end up trying to take American lives?

I am of the opinion that the U.S. government and the plutocrats who run it were very happy 9/11 occurred.

They needed another endless "war" after the Cold War to use to control the populace through FEAR.

The never-ending War on Terror fits that bill perfectly.

They don't care about keeping people safe.

They care about control and power.

And they love when some horrific event like the Boston bombing occurs, because it helps along their cause - to impose as much surveillance on and control over people as possible.

Daily News And Post Are In Their Glory This Morning

The ghouls working at the NY Daily News and the NY Post love mornings like this one.

They get to run dozens of stories about terror and death and mass injuries and chaos with captions like "Blood Everywhere!" and "I Heard This Bang - Then Chaos!"

They get to run photos of people with their legs blown off and scenes of carnage around the Boston Marathon.

If you're working for the NY Post, you can even report casualties at the Boston Marathon bombing were 4 times as high as they actually were and then pull back that report without ever acknowledging you were wrong.

And the Newsies and the Posties all make believe like this stuff they are running is in the "public interest."

They're just out to inform the public, give them the information they need to know to stay safe.

Sure.

The media in general loves days like yesterday and today, with all the blood and gore and fear and chaos to report.

But the News and the Post just seem to love it a little more than the rest.

TSA Strip Searches, Bloodies 85 Year Old Gandmother At JFK

The message from this story is simple - submit to our control mechanisms or we will FUCK YOU UP:

An 85-year-old Long Island grandmother says she plans to sue the TSA after a humiliating strip search on Tuesday by agents at JFK Airport.

Lenore Zimmerman, who lives in Long Beach, says she was on her way to a 1 p.m. flight to Fort Lauderdale when security whisked her to a private room and took off her clothes.

“I walk with a walker — I really look like a terrorist,” she said sarcastically. “I’m tiny. I weigh 110 pounds, 107 without clothes, and I was strip-searched.”

TSA spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said a review of closed circuit TV footage from the airport shows “proper procedures were followed.”

But Zimmerman, whose hunched back puts her at 4-foot-11, said her ordeal began after her son, Bruce, drove her to the JetBlue terminal for the Florida flight. She lives in warm Coconut Creek during the winter.

She checked her bags, waited for a wheelchair and parted ways with her doting son — her only immediate relative.

When Zimmerman reached a security checkpoint, she asked if she could forgo the advanced image technology screening equipment, fearing it might interfere with her defibrillator.

She said she normally gets patted down. But this time, she says that two female agents escorted her to a private room and began to remove her clothes.

“I was outraged,” said Zimmerman, a retired receptionist.

As she tried to lift a lightweight walker off her lap, she says, the metal bars banged against her leg and blood trickled from a gash.

“My sock was soaked with blood,” she said. “I was bleeding like a pig.”

She says the TSA agents showed no sympathy, instead pulling down her pants and asking her to raise her arms.

“Why are you doing this?” she said she asked the agents, who did not respond.

The TSA claims the footage does not show any sign of the injury.

Ms. Zimmerman is lucky the NYPD didn't get - she'd have gotten an orange net thrown around her and been pepper-sprayed too.

This is the new normal in America - more and more security and control by the establishment, and while they nominally say you don't have to submit to it, the people who ask out often pay a price.

Even 85 year old, 110 pound women who are 4 foot 11 and use a walker.

Until Americans finally wake up and say enough with this shit, things are going to get worse and worse.

The powers-that-be will continue to use this "We-Are-At-War" excuse to perpetrate more and more domestic control over us.

And of course this has never been about fighting terrorism.

That's just the convenient excuse they use.

How Come?

How come when Osama bin Laden plans and carries out an attack that kills 3,000 Americans, he is branded a "terrorist," hunted down by the U.S. after billions of dollars and two wars are started to find him and eventually found and summarily executed mafia style in a compound in Pakistan, but when innocent Pakistanis are wounded or killed in drone attacks ordered by Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama, nobody calls the president a "terrorist"?

I'm glad Osama is not around to plan and carry out more terror attacks.

I bet many Pakistanis will feel the same way when Obama is gone from power.

From McClatchy in December, 2010:

There's been a massive ramp-up in drone strikes under the Obama administration, a weapon the U.S. considers highly effective, particularly against Taliban and al Qaida extremists based across the border from Afghanistan in Pakistan's remote tribal area.

There was no way of verifying the stories of the drone victims who've come forward. They all denied links to militants and claimed that the strikes were hitting mostly civilians. They described a terrifying existence under the drones in North Waziristan, the focus of the strikes.

A 13-year-old boy, Saddam Hussain, said that he lost his 10-month-old niece and sister-in-law in a strike on their house on the night of Oct. 9, in the Datta Khel area of North Waziristan. Hussain carried a large picture of the baby girl with him.

"The drones patrol day and night. The sound comes when they fly lower down. Sometimes we see six in the air all at once," Saddam said. "When they come down, people run out of their houses, even at night."

Saddullah, a 15-year-old who goes by one name, also had made the journey from North Waziristan. He lost an eye and both legs in a drone strike last year, near Mir Ali town, he said. Three family members died, including an uncle who used a wheelchair. He said that instead of his three relatives, it was reported at the time that the strike killed three Taliban commanders.

"I was drinking tea with my family ... when it struck," said the shy 15-year-old, who now walks on prosthetic legs.

There was another drone strike Friday, adding to the 107 already recorded this year, according to a tally by the New America Foundation, an independent research organization based in Washington. That compares with 53 hits in 2009 and 34 in 2008. Of the strikes this year, 97 percent have been in North Waziristan, where a witch's brew of jihadist groups are based, including the Haqqani network, possibly the most effective insurgent outfit in Afghanistan.

Since the strikes began in 2004, 1,286 to 1,981 people have died in the bombardment, according to the New America Foundation. At least 32 senior al Qaida, Afghan Taliban or Pakistani Taliban commanders were killed in those strikes. Many of the rest would be midlevel militants and foot soldiers. It's broadly thought that the strikes are often accurate, but the number of civilians who are dying, from faulty intelligence or collateral damage, is unknown.

Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, a U.S.-based human rights group, said in a report this week that unnamed U.S. officials had put civilian deaths from drone strikes at 20 to 30 since the beginning of last year. Yet CIVIC's own small sample of nine strikes uncovered 30 civilian deaths, including at least 14 women and children.

The U.S. estimates of civilian casualties are far too low, said Christopher Rogers, Pakistan field fellow at CIVIC. "There's no accountability, no one is keeping count of the civilian deaths and no compensation is paid."

I guess innocent Pakistani casualties from drone attacks is just the kind of "data" the "data-driven" president doesn't want tracked or released.

As Americans danced over the news of the death of Bin Laden a few weeks back, I couldn't help but think of the drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the innocent people killed in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the innocents killed in the undeclared actions in places like Pakistan and Yemen, and wonder if the people in those countries wouldn't dance in the street with joy if Bush or Obama were executed the way Osama was.

I bet they would.

UPDATE:

Glenn Greenwald writes how these actions against "terrorists" perpetuate themselves and the Forever War:

The New York Times reports today:

For the second time in three days, a night raid in eastern Afghanistan by NATO forces resulted in the death of a child, setting off protests on Saturday that turned violent and ended in the death of a second boy. . . .

"American forces did an operation and mistakenly killed a fourth-grade student; he had gone to sleep in his field and had a shotgun next to him," [the district's governor, Abdul Khalid]. said. "People keep shotguns with them for hunting, not for any other purposes," Mr. Khalid said.

The boy, [15], was the son of an Afghan National Army soldier . . . When morning came, an angry crowd gathered in Narra, the boy’s village, and more than 200 people marched with his body to the district center. Some of the men were armed and confronted the police, shouting anti-American slogans . . .

The police opened fire in an effort to push back the crowd to stop its advance to the district center. A 14-year-old boy was killed, and at least one other person was wounded, Mr. Khalid said. . . .

On Thursday, a night raid by international forces in Nangahar Province resulted in the death of a 12-year-old girl and her uncle, who was a member of the Afghan National Police.

There's nothing much new to say here, but every now and then, it's worth highlighting not only what we're doing, but what the results are. Just imagine the accumulated hatred from having things like this happen day after day, week after week, year after year, for a full decade now, with no end in sight -- broadcast all over the region. It's literally impossible to convey in words the level of bloodthirsty fury and demands for vengeance that would arise if a foreign army were inside the U.S. killing innocent American children even a handful of times, let alone continuously for a full decade.

It's the perfect self-perpetuating cycle: (1) They hate us and want to attack us because we're over there; therefore, (2) we have to stay and proliferate ourselves because they hate us and want to attack us; (3) our staying and proliferating ourselves makes them hate us and want to attack us more; therefore, (4) we can never leave, because of how much they hate us and want to attack us. The beauty of this War on Terror -- and, as the last two weeks have demonstrated, War is the bipartisan consensus for what we are and should be doing to address Terrorism -- is that it forever sustains its own ostensible cause.

War is Peace and Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Speaking of Failure...

Nothing like the party that brought us the the Katrina disaster relief, the Iraq war WMD fiasco and Operation Ignore prior to 9/11 coming out of the woodwork to criticize President Obama's response to the Christmas Day terrorist plot over Detroit.

This is especially galling considering how similar the Obama administration's response to the Detroit bombing attempt was to the Bush administration's response to the shoe bomber Richard Reid eight years ago.

Politico notes the hypocrisy:

Eight years ago, a terrorist bomber’s attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner was thwarted by a group of passengers, an incident that revealed some gaping holes in airline security just a few months after the attacks of Sept. 11. But it was six days before President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about the so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the press or any opposition Democrats that his response was sluggish or inadequate.

That stands in sharp contrast to the withering criticism President Barack Obama has received from Republicans and some in the press for his reaction to Friday’s incident on a Northwest Airlines flight heading for Detroit.

...

The similarities between last Friday’s incident and the attempted shoe bombing in 2001 are striking.

This year’s attack came on Christmas. The attempt eight years ago took place on Dec. 22. Obama was on vacation in Hawaii when the suspect, Omar Abdulmutallab, allegedly used plastic explosives in his try to blow up the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight. Bush was at Camp David when Reid used similar plastic explosives to try to blow up his Paris-to-Miami flight, which diverted to Boston after the incident.

Like the Obama White House, the Bush White House told reporters the president had been briefed on the incident and was following it closely. While the Obama White House issued a background statement through a senior administration official calling the incident an “attempted terrorist attack” on the same day it took place, the early official statements from Bush aides did not make the same explicit statement.

Bush did not address reporters about the Reid episode until December 28, after he had traveled from Camp David to his ranch in Texas.

Democrats do not appear to have criticized Bush over the delay. Many were wary of publicly clashing with the commander in chief, who was getting lofty approval ratings after what appeared to be a successful military campaign in Afghanistan. The media also seemed to have little interest in pressing Bush about the bombing, or the fact that the incident had revealed a previously unknown vulnerability in airplane security — that shoes could be used to hide chemicals or explosive devices.

Do I think Obama should have made a stronger statement on Christmas about the bombing?

From a political standpoint, I do. Knowing that Repubs would jump on this to portray him as weak and ineffectual (i.e.. Jimmy Carter), he should have gone before cameras to say "I'm on top of this, we're investigating and making sure airline security will be safer going forward."

Instead he let Director of Homeland Security chief Janet Napalitano issue her "The system worked..." statement and has been on the defensive ever since.

So two things here - once again, Obama, perhaps in an attempt to break away from the "politics of the past," has allowed an issue to be framed by the opposition party to make him look weak.

Second, Dems are not doing a good enough job pointing out that Bush and Cheney did not respond for days to the Reid bombing, and for that matter, they didn't respond to any of the pre-9/11 intel about an impending attack coming in the U.S. either.

Republicans are very good at lying to the cameras with a straight face - just watch Peter King or Pete Hoekstra on FOX News talk about how responsive the Bush administration was to the Reid bomber and you'll see what I mean.

And Cheney - oh, boy. Five Deferments Cheney, the guy who ran away and hid on September 11, 2001, sure is a tough guy when his fat ass is safe from actual harm. Then he talks about how we're at war and Obama doesn't know we're at war, blah, blah, blah, but when it came to actual effective anti-terrorism policy or creating a system where intelligence agencies actually effectively traded intel, well, that Cheney wasn't so good at.

As you know if you have been reading this blog, I think Obama is an abject failure as president. He's great at demanding accountability from teachers and blaming the education system for the country's ills, but not so great at demanding accountability from the bankers and hedge fund managers who nearly destroyed the economy, the economic policy makers like Bernanke, Geithner and Summers who helped create the economic mess in the first place, or the people in his administration who fail at the very tasks they were put in charge of - like Napolitano at Homeland Security.

But for the party of Bush/Cheney - the people who gave us Katrina, Iraq and 9/11 in the first place - to call Obama incompetent and ineffectual...that's just too much horse#$%* to take.

Too bad Dems aren't calling them on it.

If Napolitano Were A Teacher, She'd be Fired

Make no bones about it, George Bush engaged in Operation Ignore prior to 9/11. He was told in no uncertain terms in an August 2001 presidential daily brief that Al Qaeda was determined to attack inside the United States. He told the official who delivered that PDB, "All right, you've covered your ass...now get outta here!" Then he went back to pulling brush at his ranch while jihadis flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Also make no mistake about it that George Bush completely ignored the disaster in New Orleans until his adviser, Dan Bartlett, made a DVD of the evening news broadcasts and showed him that people were dying. Only then did Bush act and even then, it was more about making it look like the government was responding rather than actually doing anything effective to help.

Clearly Mr. Bush was not too effective at safeguarding the United States, no matter what his cheerleaders at Fox News or the Washington Post editorial page said.

Unfortunately neither is the guy who replaced him.

Last Friday, a Nigerian jihadi set his penis on fire trying to bring down a jet plane over Detroit. President Obama was vacationing in Hawaii with his family and rather than make any statements about the incident or the investigation, he let members of his administration, primarily Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano, do the talking for him while he rode the waves.

Napolitano told CNN on Sunday "The system worked" even though American intelligence agencies ignored a tip from Penis On Fire's father that he had become radicalized and could pose a threat, particularly because he had disappeared. Intelligence agents did not act on the tip and Penis on Fire came close to bringing down a plane.

President Accountability finally put his surf board away yesterday to say "Actually the system didn't work," after he and his administration were ridiculed by critics for their blase reaction to Friday's incident and their inability to accept responsibility for the failure of intelligence agencies.

Today, President Accountability spoke again, saying there had been a "systemic failure" that allowed Penis on Fire to get through two layers of security at airports despite being on a U.S. terrorist watchlist and his father telling U.S. officials his son had become "radicalized."

In education, President Accountability is very big on closing "failing" schools and firing "failing" teachers as part of his vaunted Race to the Top lottery game, but when it comes to his own failure to address national security or intelligence matters or even make it look like he was on top of the mess at the airports this weekend (administration officials said airport security was chaotic, but that would confuse would-be terrorists as much as it angered travelers), he's not so big on taking responsibility or "firing" anybody. Not until the heat gets too tough to take, and only then does he emerge from sand and surf to address the problems.

Unfortunately for President Accountability, it may be too little too late to save his administration. Once a president gets stereotyped, it's hard to get people to think differently. Initially Bush had people fooled that he was on top of things, but Katrina changed all that. Barry the Surf President ran as a competent manager who would bring change to Washington and hold government officials accountable, but all people seem to see is a guy who passes the buck when he or his administration screws up and a guy who seems to screw up a lot.

And the only people he seems to hold accountable are teachers.

Everybody else gets to screw up again and again (think Geithner and Summers on unemployment and the financial bailout, think Bernanke on Fed policy, think Napolitano on "The system worked...") and they get a "heckuva job" pat on the back from him.

Alice's Airport Masacree

The guy who set his penis on fire trying to blow up a jet plane over Detroit was waving all kinds of red flags saying "DON'T LET ME ON THIS PLANE!!!"

He bought his ticket with cash - a one way ticket from Nigeria to Detroit with a change in Amsterdam. He had no luggage, he was on a U.S. "watch-list," and his visa stated that he was visiting the United States for a "religious ceremony," which is apparently code by jihadis for martyrdom.

Now it's possible somebody with the "Going to U.S. for Religious Ceremony" designation on his visa with a one-way cash ticket and no luggage is an okay fellow, but you might want to check him out just a little more before you let him on the plane.

But that didn't happen, neither in Nigeria where government security screened him nor in Amsterdam where secondary security - private security personnel hired by the airlines - screened him again.

So he was able to get on a plane with an explosive secured to his penis.

And the Obama administration said "the system worked."

Uh, huh.

Now let me tell you my experience in the Rochester airport on Saturday, the day after Christmas.

The initial screening was no more rigorous then when we flew before Christmas. Shoes off, bags through security. I kept my contact solution and deodorant in my carry-on bag, nobody said a thing about them. But they were both less than 3 ounces, so I think those are allowed.

Next, we had to walk by an additional security checkpoint with a very important looking guy standing there with his arms folded scrutinizing everybody. That was an added layer of security but again, we got by without incident.

Once we got inside and found our flight had been delayed 3 or 4 hours, we sat and watched these four security goons in blue come out of a door every so often, slap on some plastic gloves and randomly search people stuck in the airport waiting for delayed flights - people who had already been through security.

The searches seemed random - grab a couple of people off a line and pat them down and search their clothes. Scrutinize the chapstick in their shirt pockets. Open their bags and see what magazine they brought for the flight. You know, really important stuff.

As I sat with my girlfriend waiting for our delayed flight to Newark to board, I wondered aloud how I would react if the goons in blue decided I needed to be searched. Already peeved by the flight delay, I didn't think I would react too well. Probably like Arlo Guthrie at the end of Alice's Restaurant:

Security Goon: Sir, would you please stand up so you can be searched.

Me: Officer Obey, you got a lot of damned gall searching me. I mean, I mean, here I am, sitting on the Group W airport bench, waiting for my delayed flight to Newark, drinking the last of my coffee which I cannot replace because the entire god damned Rochester airport shuts down at 8 PM and there is nowhere else to buy coffee, and holding my disgusting Subway sandwich which I had to buy because there is no other vegetarian food option in this rinky-dink airport, and you want to search me because you think I might be a terrorist with an explosive powder strapped to my penis who wants to blow up women, children and Continental Airlines property?

Yeah, I just don't think that rant to security would have gone so well, not even if I was as charming as Arlo or sang it to Officer Obey and the rest of the security goons in four part harmony on the guitar.

And yet, the silliness with which they were randomly picking people to search and the things they were searching for sure did echo the ridiculousness of Officer Obey and Arlo's arrest for littering in Alice's Restaurant.

Another example of American blind justice indeed.

Effective anti-terrorism measures?

Not so much.

And This Will Do What?

Flying home from holiday visiting was a big pain in the ass.

A blizzard in Chicago, fog and rain in Newark, and the idiot in Detroit who set his penis on fire trying to blow up a jet made for a very hectic day.

Took almost 9 hours to get from Rochester to Newark.

Watching the parrotheads and hysteria mongers on TV this morning (CNN has this on the screen: SINGLE ACT OR PART OF A LARGER PLAN?), I keep wanting to headbutt somebody through my TV.

I know it's the media's job to create and hype fear (after all, it's good for both the news business and many of the businesses the corporate conglomerates that own these media outlets run) and it's obviously also good for the politicians both in and out of power (when was the last time you saw a HEALTH CARE REFORM SUCKS story? How long before Cheney emerges from the bunker he dwells in and appears on TV to say I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!! BOMB YEMEN!!!!!!!).

But let's be honest here - none of these security measures that the "terrorist experts" on TV want put in place, nor the measures the administration has put in place already, will keep people 100% safe.

Nor will expanding the WoT to Yemen as Holy Joe Lieberman called for on FOX News this morning.

There is no way to keep one or two crazy people from getting on an airplane and setting their penises on fire trying to blow it up. Doesn't matter how much security you add, how many pat-downs you do, how often you make people bend over and grab their ankles before you allow them on a plane - when you are a corporate power like the United States and you create the kinds of enemies we create by allowing the corporations and the corporate whores that rule us to exploit people all over the world, this kind of stuff will continue to happen.

But you sure can make life hell by adding ridiculous restrictions at airports, on trains and in other public places that do little to keep people safe while continuing to stoke fear in the general public by running hysterical stories like SINGLE ACT OR PART OF A LARGER PLAN? or I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!! BOMB YEMEN!!!!!!!

But maybe that's the point - maybe the idiots who rule us want it this way - keep us on edge, fearful of losing our jobs during the week and our lives when we fly on vacation, so that whatever they want to do they can with little scrutiny or criticism.

Dunno, just feels like the WoT crap will be back in full force after this incident and it's a completely useless exercise unless the idea is to distract Americans from other stuff like why do they have to work longer and harder to make less or why don't they have decent affordable health care that isn't a total giveaway to the health insurance industry or why aren't all the hedge fund managers in jail for fraud?

One last thing: I do think it's interesting that this attack came after President Obushma doubled down on the war in Afghanistan.

Just doesn't seem like the war on Iraq, the war in Afghanistan or the war in Yemen that neo-cons will undoubtedly be drooling for in the coming months is stemming the spread of radicals who want to set their penises on fire trying to bring down airplanes.

Maybe we should try something else?

Should Be Fun

Flying home from Christmas visiting today.

Anything happen over the holidays?

Oh, right:

A Nigerian man tried to ignite an explosive device aboard a trans-Atlantic Northwest Airlines flight as the plane prepared to land in Detroit on Friday, in an incident the United States believes was “an attempted act of terrorism,” according to a White House official who declined to be identified.

The device, described by officials as a mixture of powder and liquid, failed to fully detonate. Passengers on the plane described a series of pops that sounded like firecrackers.

Federal officials said the man wanted to bring the plane down.

“This was the real deal,” said Representative Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, who was briefed on the incident and said something had gone wrong with the explosive device, which he described as somewhat sophisticated. “This could have been devastating,” Mr. King said.

I don't want to underplay this. but Peter King, the go-to Congressman for national security leaks when the press needs quotes, thinks everything is the "real deal."

My initial feelings about this "attempted terrorist attack" as the White House is calling it, is that it is fairly serious and more than a little scary, but once again, the so-called Al Qaeda terrorists seem to have more than a little Laurel and Hardy in them when they're trying their attacks.

Think shoe bomber Richard Reid trying to blow up his shoes with matches instead of a lighter (ironically, Reid tried his attack 8 years ago this week.)

While Peter King and other Repub Congressman are linking this incident to Al Qaeda, this could also be some disgruntled crazy guy acting alone.

I guess we'll learn more in the coming days.

But one thing I am sure about today - flying home post-Christmas is going to suck.

Rumor has it they've added proctology exams and stir-ups to the pre-flight security check.

Can't wait.

UPDATE: Fantastic - new flight restrictions, including you're no longer allowed to access carry-on baggage during the last hour of your flight or have personal items on your lap.

You know, none of this crap makes me feel safer. You know what would make me feel safer? An American foreign policy that didn't create enemies by the tens of thousands along with a country willing to invest in effective airport security technology that could detect the kinds of the things that can bring down planes and pay airport security screeners more than the minimum freaking wage.

But I guess that would be asking for too much.

So sir, can you please bend over, touch your toes and spread? We think you're hiding a bomb up there...