Bin Laden’s papers prove him and al-Qaeda a hands-down success

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says he wants the Obama administration to turn over the papers of Usama bin Laden to his Committee by 11 October 2016, or he will issue a subpoena for them. He believes they will make a lie of the Obama administration’s claim that al-Qaeda was all but destroyed and bin Laden was isolated from his organization when he was killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan in May, 2011.

The congressman is wrong on two counts. First, the Bush administration is just as culpable as Obama’s on the matter of lying to the citizenry about the condition of al-Qaeda and bin Laden’s isolation from the organization. Second, while a full release of the documents would be most welcome, the documents that have already been released definitively prove this deliberate, bipartisan deceit for any person who has taken the time to read them.

There have been three major releases of the so called “Abbottabad Documents” – a bit more than 235 documents — since bin Laden’s death:

–1.), 3 May 2012

–2.), 20 March 2015

–3.), 1 March 2016

Being a terminal pedant, I have read the documents – especially those bin Laden wrote and received, many have little or nothing to do with him — and can only say that their contents are diametrically opposed to what the Bush and Obama administrations have told Americans and the world. The documents, for example, show that:

Bin Laden was never isolated. The documents make it clear that he was fully involved in all of the important facets of Al-Qaeda’s financial, manpower, military, training, and diplomatic operations. To be sure, his involvement therein became more difficult and frustrating after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent start of drone operations – which bin Laden says were the bane of AQ’s existence — but his ability to command was only slowed, never halted.

Bin Laden, in his private correspondence, never said that al-Qaeda’s war on the United States and its allies had anything to do with his hatred for Western civilization, freedom, the people’s selection of leaders, alcohol, women’s rights, etc. Until his death, he remained, in public speech and private writings, motivated by his determination to defeat U.S.-led, Western political, military, and economic intervention in the Islamic world, and especially its readiness to defend whatever Israel does, and to protect and prolong the the criminal rule of numerous Arab tyrants. In 1996 and 2016, those who argue that bin Laden’s and al-Qaeda’s war is motivated by hatred for abstract ideas – such as democracy, liberty, humans rights, etc. – are simply prevaricating and, like Bush, Obama, and their advisers, hoping that Americans are too lazy to read the three tranches of documents noted above.

–Bin Laden never was anything but enthusiastic about and thankful-to-Allah for the Arab Spring. He had always thought and written that Muslims would immediately move toward Islam, not secular democracy, if the Arab tyrants could be overthrown. When that happened, he repeatedly said that Arab Spring was a gift to Muslims from Allah, and there seems to have been no one in al-Qaeda that dissented from that view. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden, and Rice, most of the U.S. Congress, the U.S. and Western media, and the academy lied through their teeth when they said secular democracy was on the way in the Arab world and the Arab Spring was the death knell for al-Qaeda. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda rejoiced at the Arab Spring as a victory sent by God for the Muslims who had been brave enough to revolt, as well as for the mujahedin who had spent a quarter-century setting the stage. The Arab Spring caused bin Laden and al-Qaeda worry only because they were not confident that the victorious Muslims could form effective Sharia governments quickly enough to prevent counter-revolutions by the tyrants. This worry was well taken in regard to Egypt and, perhaps, Tunisia, and the jury is still out on the other Arab Spring states and the other Arab tyrants who have yet to fall, but will.

–Bin Laden resolutely opposed any near-term attempt to recreate the Caliphate. Attributing this intention to him is another lie by those who refuse to understand — and often have political reasons for refusing — what al-Qaeda was and is about. This is not to say bin Laden did not want a Caliphate, because he certainly yearned for its reconstruction, but he only wanted to try it when the time was right. When would the time be right? Only when the United States had been driven from the Arab world by God’s will, the tenacity of the mujahedin, the U.S. government’s inability (or unwillingness?) to win a decisive military victory, and the national financial disaster that Washington’s never-ending, interventionist war on Islam would yield. Bin Laden warned his colleagues that any premature attempt to restore the Caliphate would be dismantled by U.S. military power – I think he meant air power knocking down infrastructure — and that it was an open question if the mass of Muslims would support a second bloody effort to do so. Islamic State chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi must not have heard bin Laden’s advice, or, if he did, he ignored it, as the U.S., Western, Russian, Iranian, and other air forces are doing precisely that kind of destruction right now, although very far from murderously enough to eliminate the Islamists. Al-Baghdadi and his lieutenants appear to headed back to a victorious-in-the-future insurgency – air power cannot beat that – and, in the meantime, he and they can dwell on the fact that bin Laden was right, their caliphate-building was premature, and for now they are better advised to focus all they have on bleeding America, at home and abroad, both economically and in terms of civilian and military lives. If the status quo in U.S. foreign policy endures, they will win in that effort. But, for now, the only people who will miss the Caliphate are the pro-Israel, American Neoconservatives who have used it for more than decade to scare the citizenry into supporting their lust for unnecessary wars and their smug acceptance of dead and maimed young Americans.

–Bin Laden never once thought, per the released documents, that the 9/11 attacks were a mistake, as some Western pundits and analysts argued during the recent anniversary of the raids, with one inexplicably describing it a “spectacular miscalculation”. The documents released so far prove that bin Laden considered the 9/11 attacks to be the key victory that Allah had given to al-Qaeda and Muslims. The attack got the U.S. military into an Islamic country where it could be bled and defeated more easily, and – bin Laden would say “all thanks to God – publicly proved its unintelligent strategy and resolute, politically correct impotency. That U.S. forces are there 15 years later, still bleeding and losing, is irrefutable evidence that bin Laden was right. Indeed, 9/11 was a marvelous two-for-one operation for AQ, for, without out it, U.S. forces would not be mired in Iraq today, fighting for the interests of Syria, Russia, and Iran. Defeating two U.S.-led, Western field armies and having the West firmly and publicly on the side of Shia Iran and Hizballah, now that is a lot of bang for the pittance AQ spent to run the 9/11 raids, a real “Allahhu Akbar” moment. One more thing, the released documents clearly show that bin Laden and his media team began planning for the celebration of 9/11’s tenth anniversary in the last months of 2010, and had contacted media outlets and found them willing to lend a hand. The U.S. Seals thankfully killed bin Laden before he could inflict that humiliation on America, but otherwise he died a complete success: Al Qaeda’s role as an indispensable vanguard group was complete and utterly successful; the jihad itself was self-sustaining and increasingly international; and the jihad’s most vital ally – unnecessary U.S. military interventionism – was alive and well and about to be unleashed again by Obama and Hillary Clinton, with Republican support, in Libya, Iraq, and Syria.

Bin Laden’s last words surely must have been “God is greatest!”  And, wherever he is, bin Laden knows that, God willing, there is still another al-Qaeda shoe to fall on the United States.



Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton’s pledge of “resolve” in the Islam war means the demise of America

The media yesterday, in wake of the Islamist attacks in New York, quoted Hillary Clinton as promising “resolve” (1) in the fight against Islamism. She did not promise U.S. victory, annihilation of the foe, an end to war-causing interventionism, an effective and reliable domestic defense, or an end to the waste of American military and civilian lives. “Resolve”, you may have noticed, is what America has had as a policy for the Islam war from the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. America has been led with “resolve” in this war since 1996, and it is leading the republic to calamity.

“Resolve”, in Hillary’s mind, is what you show when you believe there is some other outcome in the war with Islam besides winning or losing. There is not. And there never has been. All of those in both parties, the media, the military, and the academy who have, for 20-plus years, told Americans that there is — in such forms as nation-building, democracy-spreading, election-holding, or womens-rights awarding — are liars, stupid, or stupid liars. That is the basket in which Hillary, her husband, Bush, Cheney, Obama, and Biden permanently belong.

Screw “resolve”, it means cowardice, timidity, bankruptcy, and defeat. Mrs. Clinton proved this point yesterday when she trumpeted the fact that she had taken “part in the hard decisions to take terrorists off the battlefield.”(2) Any would-be American president who finds it “hard” — rather than a pleasure — to kill as many of America’s worst enemies as possible when chances arise to do so, is a worthless citizen meriting nothing but scorn and contempt.

America is either all in the Islam war, or all out; slaughter all Islamists and their supporters, or get out of a war that no longer concerns us, except for closing/controlling our border and lawfully hounding domestic Islamists to prison or death. And these are the only options there have been since the self-worshiping Bill Clinton refused to take any of the ten chances CIA gave him (1998-1999) to kill bin Laden because, he said on 10 September 2011, it would have made him — Clinton — look like a killer like bin Laden. Poor, cowardly, philandering Marse Billy, not once in his entire life has he even come close to being the quality of man, husband, and leader that bin Laden was.

From 1999 forward, then, there never has been a chance of negotiation, compromise, or prevailing on the basis of our generals’ half-assed dependence on intelligence, rendition, Special Forces, useless allies, and drones. Why? Because they are, at best, sideshows to the massive use of main force that is required to win the kind of war we are fighting, that most vicious of all conflicts, a religious war, and one that is only going to get more vicious and geographically dispersed.

The best of the two options clearly is to get out of the way and let the currently gathering momentum for a Shia-Sunni war come to fruition. Let the Israelis, Europeans, and our Sunni non-allies take care of themselves. That said, there is little to quarrel with if a decision is made to unilaterally annihilate — our allies participation would ensure failure — however much of Islam is necessary to definitively win. But such a decision would be very expensive in terms of American lives, limbs, and treasure. Much better to let those who more merit the costs pay them.

A final note. When thinking about voting for Hillary, recall that she repeatedly has said that her husband would play a big part in her administration. Then recall what Bill Clinton told his Australian business cronies on 10 September 2011:

“I nearly got him [bin Laden]. And I could have killed him [bin Laden], but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar [bin Laden was not in Kandahar town] in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children [an enormous exaggeration], and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.” (1)

For the parents of all U.S. soldier-children who have been killed or maimed since 9/11, and for all those whose soldier-children will certainly be killed in Hillary’s unending war of “resolve”, it is worth asking yourself what possible good could be derived — for yourselves, your kids, or your country — from putting two such lethal-to-Americans and self-serving narcissists back in the White House.

The answer is none.






Posted in Articles | 1 Comment

Congress quietly slips nearly 38 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars to irrelevant foreigners

The 535 members of the U.S. Congress and Senate and President Obama’s administration have made clear what their collective priority is for spending taxpayer money. They had a pot of $38 billion to spend and, as always, there were numerous items contending for top-priority financial support, but only one could win.

Let us start with several of the most vital items that would be found any list of America’s needs, but which lost out in the contest for spending that $38 billion of your money and mine. We will then finish by naming the big winner who will — like a quick-handed sneak-thief — reach in and take the money right out of our pockets.


–1.) Quickly and completely fixing the lead-contaminated water problem in Flint, Michigan, and other American cities where the problem exists. (That is, $0 from the $38 billion pot.)

–2.) Immediate actions to ensure no more U.S. military veterans die or commit suicide while awaiting medical or psychiatric assistance. (That is, $0 from the $38 billion pot.)

–3.) Effective, near-term efforts to remedy the prolonged cruelty of allowing 25-percent of America’s kids to be hungry or malnourished. (That is, $0 from the 38 billion pot.)

–4.) Funding to help state and local governments use paper ballots for the 2016 presidential election so no voter need fear his vote will be misdirected or deleted by foreigner hackers, as well as to shut up the lawless FBI Director Comey, whose dire warnings about foreign hacking sound — with Trump up in the polls — much like a prelude to Obama cancelling the election. (That is, c. $0 from the $38 billion pot.)

–5.) A well-funded and aggressive research drive to cure breast, prostrate, and childhood cancer in America as quickly as possible. (That is, $0 from the c. $38 billion pot.)


Israel receives $38 billion. (1) (That is, all of the dollars in the $38 billion pot.)

That is more than $4,500 per Israeli, (2) but not a red cent from that pot of money for even one economically hard-up, sick, hungry, or unemployed American. That is precisely how much the bipartisan political elite cares about the worst-off Americans and their needs. In short, they do not care a lick for the citizenry. They care only for the disloyal Jewish-Americans who lead the Israel-First gang —  and help fund their election campaigns — and the grasping foreigners who lead a country irrelevant, nay, detrimental, to the genuine national-security interests of the United States.




–2.) Israel’s population is about 8 million. See,


Posted in Articles | 7 Comments

9/11 commemorations are always exercises in delusion and deceit

I have written here on previous 9/11 anniversaries that the day ought to be called something like the “National Day of Delusion”. I thought this year I would refrain from marking the day, but driving home from Mass this morning and listening to the radio I again got a burr under my saddle about all the falsehoods being propounded over the airwaves. Let us leave aside the fake grief that the media manufactures on each 9/11, and look rather at phrases such as “the terrorists were unable to change America”, “we have avenged the innocent that died in the attack”, “the new skyscrapers in New York City show America is stronger than ever”, and that old, but still reliably nauseating standby “we will never forget.”

Each phrase could be taken and commented on in turn, but the mass of ignorance, stupidity, and/or deceit they represent is so enormous that a few general correctives might be more in order.

–On this 9/11, Americans are marking an enormous U.S. military defeat delivered by an enemy who overwhelmed an incompetently led and politically correct U.S. military, as well as the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans whose lives remain unavenged, which is the only means of honoring wartime deaths. The time has come to stop treating U.S. general officers as demigods until they can prove they can win a war, or one or more of them are found to have enough integrity to resign and speak publicly about the cowardice they consistently display by silently leading their men and women into wars they know their president does not intend to win and under rules of engagement that make them targets not killers. I would propose that an appropriate way to mark future 9/11s would be to hang each of the service academies in black blunting to mark the manner in which their recent graduates have killed what General MacArthur described as their credo, “duty, honor, country.”

–The idea that the terrorists did not succeed in changing America can be shown to be a nonsense by the fact that every U.S. citizen has been, and will again become, the target of the national government’s electronic collection efforts, effectively invading their privacy and depriving them of the protections of the 4th Amendment. The reality that the terrorists have negated a part of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights — though not to the extent of the constitutional damage done by another terrorist named Obama — seems definable as an important change in the way Americans live.

–The new skyscrapers in New York City symbolize the widespread inability of Americans to face facts, a situation that is encouraged by their bipartisan political elite, which continues to ensure endless war by staging military interventions in the interests of Israel-First, Saudi Arabia,the elite democracy-crusaders in the United States and Europe, and now even Iran. The new buildings may well serve business interests, but they really symbolize nothing but a misunderstanding of the enemy. Does any sane person really think that the enemy regards those buildings as a sign that they cannot defeat America? Not a chance. They simply regard them as new targets, and probably are amused that so much more focus, effectiveness, and skill have been put into their construction, than have been directed against those who caused the necessity of reconstructing the buildings.

–The most important reality that we need to face and understand is that both U.S. political parties deliberately have created a new American underclass whose job is to die silently and uselessly. For twenty years and a month, the U.S. national government has profligately expended the talents, endurance, and, too often, the lives and limbs of U.S. military personnel — at the rank of lieutenant colonel and below, of course — and the officers of the U.S. intelligence community. All of the dead, wounded, and burned out from these organizations are much more the casualties of their own leaders’ actions and effeminacy, than they are of the enemy’s actions. These men and women have carried the burdens of war on their backs and in their minds, only to find that on this 9/11 their political and military leaders have deliberately lost two wars — in Iraq and Afghanistan — and have then used them to reintervene and lose a second time in each. They also find that during the past week U.S. military aircraft were attacking the enemy in six different countries, a fact that underlines the wanton manner in which the efforts and lives of U.S. military and intelligence officers have been wasted, and how much stronger and geographically dispersed the enemy is today than he was on the first 9/11.

If those who died on the first 9/11 are watching today, they will see a pathetic parade of notable personalities expressing faux grief and mock tears for them, declaring utterly groundless claims about America’s enduring strength, and spewing transparent lies about the nearing of U.S. victory over the victors of the battle on 9/11. They will also see the base wickedness of those political and military leaders who have since, the 9/11 attack, pontificated about how the dead of that day would never be forgotten, and how those who killed them would be destroyed.

At the close of this 9/11, then, those who fell on the day of the attack, and those who have since been killed, maimed, or made mentally distraught in wars never intended to be won, will know one thing for certain. They will know that their lives, limbs, and futures have been wasted because their national government, the two national political parties, and most of the academy and the media do not give a damn about them, save for the fact that their graves allow these grandees, on each 9/11, to continue lying about their intention to defend the republic, its constitution, and its citizens. The dead discussed herein may not be in the politicians’ “basket of deplorables”, but they clearly are in their “basket of expendables”. And, when you think about it, the two baskets probably are one and the same, together made up of those at times uncouth, always frankly spoken, hardworking, and hopelessly quaint Americans who tend to go MacArthur one better, by being willing to live and die in the name of duty, honor, country, and God.

Posted in Articles | 3 Comments

To the Washington Post: Is there anyone there who knows anything about America?

Late in the afternoon of 7 September 2016, the Washington Post published a story that carried the following title, “Trump calls for higher defense spending after months of isolationist talk“. (1) The most germane part of this fundamentally uneducated and anti-Trump article is in the two following paragraphs.

–“As soon as I take office, I will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military. It is so depleted. We will rebuild our military,” Trump said Wednesday during a speech at the Union League in Philadelphia. “This will increase certainty in the defense community as to funding and will allow military leaders to plan for our future defense needs.”

–“The speech marked a striking shift toward conservative orthodoxy for the real estate developer, whose candidacy on foreign affairs was built on an anti-establishment, anti-interventionist message. Trump has often dismissed the value of consulting experts on international relations, pointing to upheaval in the Middle East as proof that their policies have been ineffective and asserting last year that he knew “more about ISIS than the generals do.”

Now, Trump has not once called for an “isolationist” foreign policy for the United States. Indeed, no political figure of any prominence in U.S. history has ever called for an isolationist foreign policy. Why? Because we are a trading nation and so must be involved in commerce in all areas of the world, as well as in joint scientific endeavors, banking relationships, and dozens of other dealings that are part of being a nation-state existing in a world of nation-states. As Pat Buchanan once said, the term “isolationist” has been used, since the 1930s, as a slur by those upper-class and foreign-owned Americans who want the United States to intervene in other peoples’ wars in the name of democracy and freedom, as well as by malignant foreigners — Britain and France in the late 1930s, Israel, NATO, and the EU today — who want us to intervene in the wars they have started or want to fight, and, in essence, fight their wars, pay for them, and then clean up the postwar mess. Since 1945, the adjective “isolationist” also has been used to identify Americans opposed to U.S. intervention in wars that are none of the republic’s concern as pro-communists, America-haters, and anti-Semites. The term “America First”, of course, is used for the same vile purpose.

The author of the Post article does, most remarkably, stumble onto the truth when, in the second paragraph above, he notes that Trump has championed a non-interventionist foreign policy. Non-interventionism is not in any conceivable way a deviant kind of foreign policy. It is, after all, the foreign policy the republic’s Founders decided was best able to serve genuine U.S. national-security interests in perpetuity. While it reigned in the White House, the United States fought few if any overseas wars. Since it was abandoned — by William McKinley and the loathsome Woodrow Wilson — America has had, quite literally, almost nothing but unnecessary wars.

For the Founders, non-intervention simply meant that (a) America would deal amicably with other nations on any number of issues, save for those nations that chose to attack or tried to subvert the republic, and (b) would never become involved in foreign wars that posed no threat to the United States, even if one or more of the nations involved in such irrelevant-to-America wars was thought to be a friend of the United States.

Because they knew history and human nature better than any current U.S. politician, and because they also knew that history always repeats itself, the Founders believed that war brought death, deep debt and high taxes, internal divisions, and the tyranny that is the inevitable product of the war-engendered growth of excessive executive power. They believed these results would occur even in wars that America had to fight because they were life-or-death struggles for the republic’s existence; that is, necessary wars. Naturally enough, then, the Founders were confident that involving America in other peoples’ wars that were irrelevant to U.S. national security would be a gross stupidity that would unjustifiably impose on Americans the unending grief resident in the host of plagues just mentioned. For the Founders, wars were undertaken only for matters that meant life or death for the republic; they were never, ever, fought for the purpose of winning abstract and unattainable goals — freedom, liberty, women’s rights, secularism, the “right” of a country to exist, etc. — for foreign nations.

Trump, so far, has been a non-interventionist, which, he has made clear, means neither isolationism nor pacifism. Likewise, he clearly sees that there are deranged carnivores lose in the world who would quickly harm America if they concluded it would not respond immediately and decisively. Indeed, such miscreants are doing so today because of the pacific behavior and idealistic — and therefore laughable — rhetoric of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Founders, especially Washington, Jay, Hamilton, and Knox, held that a non-interventionist foreign policy would protect the republic only if America had a military strong enough to smash any nation that believed — as Iran does in 2016 — it could do as it pleased and America would not defend itself to the utmost. In short, non-intervention and a large and capable military must go hand-in-hand.

So the Post, as always, is wrong. Trump remains a non-interventionist — not an isolationist — and, as the Post’s article notes, he continues to politely and clearly inform the Europeans that NATO is a deservedly dying entity because (a) they will not fund their own defense; (b) they are without commonsense, except for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic; (c) they bait Russia with their democracy-mongering — as in the Ukraine — while counting on the U.S. military to rescue them; (d) Americans are no longer is willing to go war automatically if one of the other 27 NATO nations does so; and (e) because Europe’s leaders have already mandated the suicide of their civilization through the door they have opened to unlimited numbers of Muslim migrants.

Whether in 1790 or 2016, the Founders’ non-interventionist foreign policy fits the United States and the American people like a glove, one that can ensure its survival, sovereignty, independence, and to the greatest possible extent in this war-loving world, its peace. For now, Trump has it precisely right. More power to him.




Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment