Feb 19 2008

Details Of US Strike On al-Qaeda In Pakistan

Would a Surrendercrat be so bold as to attack Bin Laden’s thugs hiding out in Pakistan as we did last January?

In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone’s operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA’s dragnet.

Hours before the attack, multiple sources said, the CIA was alerted to a convoy of vehicles that bore all the signatures of al-Qaeda officers on the move. Local residents — who two sources said were not connected to the Pakistani army or intelligence service — began monitoring the cluster of vehicles as it passed through North Waziristan, a rugged, largely lawless province that borders Afghanistan.

Eventually the local sources determined that the convoy carried up to seven al-Qaeda operatives and one individual who appeared to be of high rank. Asked how the local support had been arranged, a U.S. official familiar with the episode said, “All it takes is bags of cash.”

Kamran Bokhari, director of Middle East analysis for Strategic Forecasting, a private intelligence group, said the informants could have been recruits from the Afghanistan side of the border, where the U.S. military operates freely.

“People in this region don’t recognize the border, which is very porous,” Bokhari said. “It is very likely that our people were in contact with intelligence sources who frequent both sides and could provide some kind of targeting information.”

It really is sad the US Congress has blinded our NSA to actions in Pakistan that might lead to delivering justice to Bin Laden himself. We need to be able to act quickly and decisively when these leads start popping. We cannot let Democrats let Bin Laden slip through our intelligence nets as they did all through the Clinton years. That just leads to American deaths.

3 responses so far

3 Responses to “Details Of US Strike On al-Qaeda In Pakistan”

  1. conman says:


    You need to get your story straight. Back in August of 2007, you ridiculed Senator Obama for saying that he would not ask for Pakistan’s permission to take military action against Al Qaeda leaders if he had actionable intelligence of their location in Pakistan. You went so far as to accused him of threatening to attack an ally.

    Now you actually applaud Bush for doing the same exact thing and question if the Democrats would have the guts to do it themselves? Once again, here is the part of the Washington Post article you conveniently left out of your post:

    “Having requested the Pakistani government’s official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.”

    So yes, I do think the Democrats would be so bold as to attack Bin Laden without begging for Musharraf’s permission like we did last January – since Bush apparently got the idea from the current Democratic party frontrunner for the presidential nominee. Thank god it only took Bush 6 years and billions of dollars of military aid to figure it out! By the way, when are you planning on posting a comment on how wrong you were for critcizing Obama?

    And your comment about “Clinton” letting Bin Ladin slip through our intelligence nets, conveniently leaving the Bush years out of the equation, is hilarious. While both Clinton and Bush failed in this regard, there is no comparison between the two failures. Clinton’s failure was due in large part to pre 9-11 thinking of underestimating the danger of Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda, something that even the Republicans were guilty of. Not only did Bush allow 9-11 to happen on his watch despite warnings of an attack in the Summer of 2001, but he still hasn’t caught the guy after more than 6 years! Bush even had him cornered in Afghanistan, but decided that invading Iraq was more important. But I guess that was Clinton’s fault as well – yeah right.

    You know, you might gain more credibility if you were less partisan and a little more objective in your comments.

  2. crosspatch says:

    I posted this in the wrong thread:

    Interesting article at Rusty’s blog:


    “The Supreme Court has effectively ruled that wiretapping suspected terrorists without a warrant is legal. ”


    “If the ACLU is correct, it means that the lapsing of the FISA law is no big deal. In fact, law enforcement may now have more ability to monitor terrorist activities because of the compromises included in the new law which give FISA courts much more power to oversee law-enforcement monitoring activities.”


    “Maybe we don’t need this new FISA law after all. I wonder if the White House had been tipped as the to way the Court would rule, thus explaining why President Bush hasn’t called Congress back into session to push through the new legislation? I’m guessing, though, that today’s ruling will prompt Pelosi and company to act.”

  3. sashal says:

    AJ, looks, like you and me support the same candidate.

    Here’s what Obama said (for what he was criticized by the right and left wing pundits):

    “I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will. “