The FBI was able to use the cell phone number the Time Square car bomb suspect used to track him down.

The number from a disposable cellphone led FBI agents to the suspect arrested Monday night for allegedly driving a car bomb into Times Square on Saturday evening, according to a senior official.

“They were able to basically get one phone number and by running it through a number of databases, figure out who they thought the guy was,” the official said.

A huge law-enforcement force tracked the suspect through the afternoon and evening. He was arrested at 11:30 p.m. at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City.

The suspect, Faisal Shahzad, will be appearing in Manhattan Federal court at a time to be determined.

Tweet

The only possible explanation for Janet Napolitano’s remark that “the system worked” is that she’s trying to make a last minute bid for clueless hack of the year. She may be on to something.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Sunday that the thwarting of the attempt to blow up an Amsterdam-Detroit airline flight Christmas Day demonstrated that “the system worked.”

Asked by CNN’s Candy Crowley on “State of the Union” how that could be possible when the young Nigerian who has been charged with trying to set off the bomb was able to smuggle explosive liquid onto the jet, Napolitano responded: “We’re asking the same questions.”

Really? So what part of the system was it that worked so well? The part where he was already on the radar of security officials, but allowed to board anyhow, or the part where his father informed on him?

Maybe it was the part where he was able to smuggle bomb ingredients aboard the plane in his underwear.

I’ll tell you what part did work, the passengers who understand that 9/10 thinking will not get you to your destination.

Ms. Napolitano, it’s time for you to find a new hobby. Preferably one where you don’t have a possible effect on peoples lives. But hey, that clueless hack of the year award is going to look pretty darn good on your resume. Update it. Hopefully you’ll be using it soon.

Tweet

You’ve got to love the coverage of today’s announcement regarding bringing the 9/11 terrorists to trial in New York. I’ve been reading a bit of it and this paragraph, in a Reuters story headlined New York split over plan to try September 11 plotters caught my attention.

Several security scares since 2001 — a 2007 steam pipe explosion and earlier this year a low flying plane trailed by a fighter jet flying over the Statue of Liberty for a photo shoot — have created panic among still jittery New Yorkers.

I added the bold, just in case you didn’t see what I saw.

Are you kidding me? A “low flying plane”? Uh, could you be a little more specific? It was one of the aircraft that becomes Airforce One when the President is on board.

As for the rest of this travesty, that will have to wait for later for comment.

Tweet

BREAKING

The Tampa Tribune reports:

Former University of South Florida student Ahmed Mohamed has agreed to plead guilty to providing material support to terrorists, according to a signed 12-page plea agreement entered onto the docket in U.S. District Court.

This is one of the pair arrested near the military base in South Carolina with explosive materials in their car.

UPDATE: More on the story from the Lakeland Ledger:

Mohamed, 26, faces up to 15 years in prison. A sentencing date has not been set. , The plea agreement was filed in Tampa federal court today.

[...]

Mohamed was arrested Aug. 4 near Goose Creek, S.C., with Youssef Megahed, 22, another former USF student. A sheriff’s deputy stopped the men for speeding and searched their car when he became suspicious. He found what prosecutors said were low-grade explosives in the trunk.

A federal grand jury in Tampa indicted both men for illegally transporting explosive material across state lines. Mohamed faced additional, more serious, charges that included accusations of violating his student visa by possessing a firearm, demonstrating how to make an explosive device through a YouTube video and providing material support to terrorists.

Tweet

The BBC, Reuters, and Fox News are quoting an un-named U.S. official suggesting that Obaidah al Masri has died in Pakistan.

Senior al Qaeda planner Obaidah al Masri, considered a key suspect in the 2005 London subway and bus bombings and a foiled 2006 plot to blow up commercial airliners, is believed to have died, a U.S. official said on Wednesday.

“The sense is that he is dead,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. McClatchy newspapers reported that Masri died of hepatitis in Pakistan. The official said Masri appeared to have died of natural causes.

“He was a major operational figure,” the U.S. official said of al Masri, a pseudonym.

He confirmed that Masri was suspected in the plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean. The Washington Post in 2006 also said he was believed to be al Qaeda’s conduit to British-Pakistani cells that carried out the July 7, 2005, public transit bombings. The bombings killed 56 people. [Reuters]

FOX News notices that,

The news of al-Masri’s death comes just hours before the House Select Intelligence Committee is set to hold an open hearing on “Assessing the Fight Against Al Qaeda.”

[...]

Terrorism investigators are expected to present evidence showing that the terror organization’s network has weakened, according to prepared testimony obtained by FOX News. Experts will also discuss the hydra-like nature of Al Qaeda leadership in explaining the difficulty in fighting the terror organization, as new militants continually emerge.

That “hydra-like” nature is one of the key differences and challenges of the war against radical Islam and terrorism. Any good news regarding the death or capture of these so called leaders has to be tempered with the understanding that there are more cockroaches ready to crawl out from under whatever rock we turn over. Still, buh bye. Hope you like it warm.

Tweet

I heard this on Paul Harvey while driving in to work this morning. Andrew M. Grossman and Robert Alt have an opinion piece in today’s Washington Times that includes this suggestion:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi simply refused to schedule a vote on a bill to make those authorities permanent — a bill that had passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support. Instead, the House spent its last day in town before Mrs. Pelosi jetted off to her daughter’s wedding working on an unenforceable resolution to thumb its nose at the Bush administration.

The House’s liberal leadership, in short, put political grandstanding above national security, wasting time with show hearings featuring Roger Clemens and debating a politically driven contempt citation. Perhaps if Osama bin Laden were juicing with steroids, we could get the House to take the terrorist threat seriously.

Isn’t it comforting to observe the priorities of congress?

Tweet

Iraq and the overall war on terrorism will be a factor in the 2008 elections. The questions are, to what degree will the war be a factor and how will conditions on the ground influence voters thoughts and votes?

It is something of which the candidates are most assuredly aware.

Some Democrats say frustrated voters have given up on altering President Bush’s handling of the war, and will make Republicans pay in 2008. Others say Democratic candidates are stubbornly and dangerously out of step with an improving situation, and their most promising campaign issue may prove far less potent by next November.

Of course the importance and influence varies from voter to voter. Much of this will play out in the primaries where the voters are likely to be much more politically active.

Iraq is going to be a real problem for the Democrats.

While the Iraq situation is somewhat fluid, the top Democratic presidential contenders are locked in their Iraq-is-a-disaster message because anti-war voters play such a huge role in the party’s primaries, several politicians said. It’s possible the message will sound a bit off-key by mid-2008.

“The Democratic Party has become emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq — reluctant to acknowledge the progress our troops are now achieving,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman, a hawkish independent from Connecticut who was the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee in 2000. “If Democrats don’t take off their ideological and partisan blinders,” he said, “they risk compromising our national security and losing next year’s election.”

Of course Joe Lieberman is an exception. Quite a few others on the left disagree with his assessment.

“The American people are more negative about Iraq than ever before and want a change,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., one of his party’s top strategists. “They’ve concluded what they’ve concluded about Iraq. They’re done.”

Moreover, he said, voters will take out their anger on Republicans next year because the great majority of GOP lawmakers and presidential candidates have supported the administration’s main war policies.

“George Bush is on the ballot in 2008,” Emanuel said.

That attitude, that they are running against George Bush in 2008, is silly and wrong. Not that I don’t understand what they’re trying to do, tie the candidates to the President. That has been a common tactic since the beginning of electoral politics. This is just different. The left have such a blue-white hate for George Bush that they are not just trying to pose an identity with the current administration and it’s policies, they are going over the top and attempting to hypothetically and retroactively defeat George Bush for 2000 and 2004.

But to get back to the issue of Iraq as it relates to the 2008 elections, the left have invested heavily in defeat. The deny it, but their actions speak quite loudly. As do some of their words. The most striking example, if perhaps the most honest, was S.C. Rep James Clyburn who said,

I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us.

And it is a real problem for them. How do they appeal to their base, especially the MooreOnCodeKos cut and run portion of their base, which is by far the most vocal and influential at this point of the primary season.

Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard points to a NYT article that is, “acknowledging that Democrats are having to tapdance with all their might to try to avoid the trap they set for themselves on Iraq. They bet heavily on an American defeat and now have to face the fact that the situation in Iraq is improving despite their efforts and pronouncements.” Part of what he quotes,

While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

Gaius sized up the problem very well.

The Democrats bet the farm on defeat. If it does not happen – or if the Democrat’s Congressional tactics end up causing a funding crisis just when things are going well, they just might get one big surprise next year. Riding a tiger is fairly straightforward in theory. The big problem with riding a tiger happens when you try to get off.

And it is the reliance on defeat for their political fortunes that has the left looking for a way to spin the position they have staked out.

Ed Morrisey has this analysis:

For the past year, the Democrats have portrayed the American effort in Iraq as a failure. Their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, publicly announced that we had lost and that we should immediately retreat. Their leading candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, all but called the commander of American forces in Iraq a liar when he reported on the progress that even the Times now acknowledges as real and obvious.

Democrats have a problem larger than just the message. The substance of their policy remains defeatist. They claim that they want a new strategy in Iraq, all but oblivious that the new strategy adopted in January has proven very successful. Their strategy — smaller forces, disengaged from a reeling enemy — would actually return us to the failing strategy of 2006. It would provide al-Qaeda in Iraq and the militias a respite just when they have been pushed to the last extremity.

The spin they are trying to engage in is to say that even if the conditions are improving that enough hasn’t been done politically.

Democratic officials are quick to note that the overall trend toward less violence has not resulted in the type of Iraqi political reconciliation that might lead to a stable government after most U.S. troops leave.

“The purpose of the surge was to create a secure environment in which the Iraqi government would have the opportunity to make the political change” needed to stabilize the country, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., recently told reporters. “They have not taken advantage of that opportunity.”

I’m not going make any prediction about what impact Iraq will have on the 2008 election. As Michael O’Hanlon notes in the AP story linked above, “people make predictions about the Iraq war’s impact on the next election at their peril.”

However, if the left continues to place all pf their eggs in the basket of defeat, I may have to take my chances.

Tweet

That headline could have two interpretations. Of course most political and news junkies know that General Petraeus will be speaking before Congress today. Some have concluded, before he has said a word, that the General’s assessment is wrong.

“The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no real security in Baghdad or Anbar province, where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence,” said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., a 2008 presidential candidate who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

[...]

Biden said Petraeus’ assessment missed the point. Biden said focusing on a political solution, such as by creating more local control, was the only way to foster national reconciliation among warring factions.

“I really respect him, and I think he’s dead flat wrong,” Biden said.

Biden contended that Bush’s main strategy was to buy time and extend the troop presence in Iraq long enough to push the burden onto the next president, who takes office in January 2009, to fix the sectarian strife.

“This president has no plan — how to win and how to leave,” Biden said.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., agreed. “The problem is, if you don’t have a deadline and you don’t require something of the Iraqis, they’re simply going to use our presence as cover for their willingness to delay, which is what they have done month after month after month,” he said.

“I think the general will present the facts with respect to the statistics and the tactical successes or situations as he sees them,” Kerry said. “But none of us should be fooled — not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress — we should not be fooled into this tactical success debate.”

The other take on the headline I used could be the little tidbit I found in the last paragraph of this story.

Meanwhile, a New York Times/CBS News Poll found that Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end. Five percent of Americans said they most trust the Bush administration to resolve the war, the poll found; 21 percent said they would most trust Congress; and 68 percent expressed the most trust in military commanders.

Count me in that 68 percent.

UPDATE: The live hearing is starting now. I am posting on it here.

Tweet

This will be a very short post, because of the clarity of the choices before us.

Here is the message OBL has for the American people.

“There are two solutions to stopping it. One is from our side, and it is to escalate the fighting and killing against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out,” bin Laden said.

“The second solution is from your side,” he said. “I invite you to embrace Islam.”

In other words, convert or we will kill you. If either of those alternatives are acceptable then we should leave Iraq, Afghanistan, and let the jihadist have America as well. If those alternatives are not acceptable, we stay and fight.

It really is that simple.

Tweet

The NYT opinion piece, A War We Just Might Win, by Michael E. O’Hanolon and Kenneth M. Pollack is sure to be the subject of much discussion today. At least on the conservative side of the blogosphere.

Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

The conclusion of the article is not going to sit well with the left.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Ken McCracken at Willisms points to this article and another one by O’Hanolon and Pollack’s Brookings Institute compatriot Peter W. Rodman and has this observation.

Rodman first tells us that because things have vastly improved in Iraq, it makes it much harder for the anti-war types to end the war in a way that does not make the Democrats own the inevitable defeat that follows:

The huge strategic stakes in the Middle East argue for resisting calls for any U.S. withdrawal not warranted by conditions in Iraq. The irony is that whoever is elected president next year — from whichever party — will come to understand this better than anyone.

No, the left and the Surrender Monkey base is not going to like this at all. Talk Left puts it this way, “I have a new litmus test for the Dem Presidential candidates – they must promise not to have Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollock in their administration.”

Now let’s wait for the response from Congress.

UPDATE: As I predicted, there is a torrent of discussion on this article. I will try to add some of the comentary later, but for now here is the Memeorandum link.

Tweet