Attack on the Ministry of Justice in Kabul

On 11 February, attacks were staged on the Ministry of Justice and a Prisons Office. A third target seemed to be the Ministry of Education, which is near the Justice Ministry. However, it is possible that that lone attacker was simply lost. The attacker at the Ministry of Education was shot dead before he could cause any trouble.

Five attackers hit the Ministry of Justice, killing two policemen as they entered the building. One of the five was shot dead by a policman who followed them into the building. The remaining four then fanned out shooting at anyone who crossed their path. They managed to kill ten civilians and 57 were injured or wounded (many of the injured were hurt jumping out windows to escape the gunmen). Kabul police responded quickly, entered the building and killed all four assailants.

At the prisons office two attackers attempted to enter the building. One was shot dead immediately by a policeman. The second attacker shot the policeman dead, entered the building and detonated his explosive vest, killing himself and seven policemen.

The end tally was: terrorists 8 dead, police 10 dead, civilians 10 dead and 57 injured/wounded.

What is clear is that the attackers were trying to emulate a "Mumbai-like" attack. A key difference: Afghan police are not afraid to fight it out. The Afghans recognized the developing threat, killing three of the attackers as they entered the buildings. They did not let things turn into a prolonged siege, quickly closing in on the terrorists in the building, hunting them down and killing them.

Let us keep this in perspective. This was a bad day by Kabul standards, but only one of many far better and steadily improving days. There are days the bad guys will have success. While the attack momentarily grabbed headlines, it did not, contrary to some news reports, paralyze the city.

All of the buildings attacked on 11 February had little to no stand-off from the street. They are difficult to protect and there are large numbers of people in front of, entering and leaving these buildings all day.

A factor that angers me somewhat is that since no Westerners were killed or directly involved, it was only a passing headline in the Western media. Apart from some alarmists and Pat Buchanan ranting about how "the war is lost" the story vanished within hours. I would like to think that the excellent reaction of the Afghan police and the total annihilation of the attackers made this story not sexy enough. Perhaps if a Westerner had gotten in the crossfire, this story would have seen more play.

Below are some pictures taken less than an hour after the attacks in a different part of town.

Note the terrified women fleeing in blind panic.

Note the men in equal panic, trampling women and children in their paralyzed terror.

Thankfully there were balloon salesmen on hand to calm the masses.

Afghans are not wimps. They take bad events like Taliban attacks in stride. Afterall, they've got 30 years of experience with really bad times.

A Word About the Afghan "Resistance"

I have a new blogging buddy, Layla Anwar, except that she doesn’t blog to make buddies. She is very good at making enemies. The first time I visited her blog I was reading a post that told everyone to fuck off. Yes, in those words.

Layla is a Sunni Arab Iraqi and a big fan of Saddam Hussein. Most visitors to her site are either sycophants or people who would like to kill her – not many in the middle. Some of her “best” enemies have actually come out and said they plan to kill her.

I'm one of the rare "middle" people. I disagree with much maybe even most of what she says, but I genuinely like her. She is an exceptional person.

Layla's main blog is Arab Woman Blues. If you visit this site you must be prepared for some prose that will likely get your blood boiling either in favor of her, or against her.

She can also be quite funny as her other blog Uncensored Arab Woman Blues shows with all her issues on dating in Iraq.

You have to keep in mind when reading Arab prose that it tends to the extreme in terms of emotion. It's difficult to keep from getting wrapped up in emotion when you read it. I guess that’s the point.

Anyway, in the midst of a particularly emotional post vilifying the Imperialist American, Zionist, Safavid Shiite Iranian cabal that has ruined the Iraqi paradise that once existed under Saint Saddam, she strays into areas about which she perhaps should have remained silent - namely, Afghanistan.

In the post she gives three cheers (sort of) for what we in the West would otherwise call “the bad guys.” Of course she can be forgiven because she gets her news from the news agencies/web sites that are pushing the idea that what we are trying to do is nothing less than destroy Sunnis and usher in the American Zionist Safavid state with forced conversion to that apostate sect. In the Afghanistan detour she says: “…where the Afghan Resistance is making strides.”

At this point I take issue. Which resistance is she talking about? Is it the “resistance” in Kandahar that sprays acid in the faces of schoolgirls? Or is it the “resistance” in Kandahar and Khost and across the border in the “ungovernable provinces” of Pakistan that burns down schools and murders teachers? Perhaps it is the resistance that blew up fourteen elementary schoolchildren in Khost the last week of December?

Perhaps it’s the drug lord “resistance” in Helmand and Herat. But, since a large part of their “crop” is ending up in Iran, which now has the highest rate of heroin addiction in the world, that’s probably OK. Anything that rots the evil Safavid state from within is good.

Or maybe she means the criminal gangs (some of which include the corrupt police) who primarily rob merchants and ordinary Afghans. Maybe she means the kidnapping rings that primarily target Afghan school children (especially the girls, many of whom end up raped) and the occassional Westerner. If she means the occasional Pakistani or ARAB suicide bomber, most of whom target civilians in busy markets, they are not well-received by the local populace.

If by making strides she means terrorizing the civilian populace as opposed to attacking the Imperialist Americans and their allies, well that is primarily what the "bad guys" do here.

In reality, official corruption and ordinary crime are the biggest problems in Afghanistan. If the corruption can be negated, then the crime will dwindle and the situation for ordinary Afghans will drastically improve.

There is no comparison between Afghanistan and Iraq. The circumstances are entirely different. The US and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) do not have a single tank in Afghanistan. I live in a neighborhood in the middle of Kabul and I travel around unarmed, both in Kabul and outside of Kabul. In Kabul I can walk the streets. I am frequently in situations here that I would never have allowed myself in Iraq.

It was Afghan tanks that entered Kabul in 2001, not American. That simple fact changes many things. I will be the first to say that the West squandered precious time and golden opportunities early on. Our stupidity and arrogance made a difficult job harder, just like we did in Iraq, but the situation is far from impossible.

Cutting the Gordian knot of corruption should be the main priority. And one can’t say that these people are “used to it” or it can’t be changed because they’ve always been corrupt. That is simply not true. The ordinary people know that corruption is wrong and that it hurts business, but they are trapped in it and waiting for us to do what we promised.

In an alliance of convenience, we allowed the corrupt warlords to get their hands back into the system. It will be up to us to show them the door, or failing such direct action, provide the support to those Afghans who are trying to fight the corruption so that they can do it.

The Real Situation In Kabul

On my other blog I frequently comment on the real situation in Kabul, Afghanistan. My comments are typically at odds with what the media is reporting. I’m a professional soldier. Though I’m retired from active duty, I continue to train soldiers, ours and our allies. I’ve been in the war zone in Iraq and here for a good part of the last six years. I’m not the kind who gets nervous in this environment. Those who know that much about me may be inclined to take some of my war zone reporting with a grain block of salt as a result.

The real threats in Kabul and throughout Afghanistan are corruption and good old-fashioned crime, albeit at a high level in both categories. It is crime and corruption (rampant in the police) that are hurting reconstruction efforts. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are not a threat; they are despised and have no popular support. What support they may generate is through fear and intimidation in those areas where security is lacking. Given a choice and guarantee of security, the people reject the Taliban.

The article below was written by a woman who has been living here in Kabul for the last three years with her family. Like me, her take is that the media are reporting from a Kabul in a parallel universe. I post her comments here in their entirety.

The real situation in Kabul
United Press International
12/16/2008
By Marilyn Angelucci, Kabul

Kabul — I have been living in Kabul for the past three years, and the news reports still never cease to amaze me. This week, the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) reported that the Taliban have control of almost 75% of Afghanistan and that they will soon walk through the door of Kabul.

According to my experience living here with my family, I can’t believe that the country they are describing is the same country that I live in. According to reports by NATO, the Afghan government and a great number of our Afghan friends, I hear a different story.

The Taliban are losing any support they may have had in the past. A few months ago, they attacked a bus of Afghans headed for Iran to seek work. The travelers were from Laghman, and the attack happened in southern Afghanistan. The Taliban beheaded most of the travelers, sparing a few of the younger ones. They claimed that those executed were Afghan military.

The local people of Laghman were so angered by the attack that they united against the Taliban. According to the words of one of the survivors, local leaders have declared a “war” against any Taliban in their area. They have stated that if there are any Taliban or Taliban supporters found in their area, they will execute them and burn their homes. This was declared by the leaders of 15 districts in the province of Laghman, an ethnically Pashtun area.

The local people are fed up with the Taliban's tactics. Even those that may have supported the Taliban in the past have become disgusted by the killing and torturing of innocent civilians. They have lost hope that the Taliban can bring about anything better than what the Karzai government can.

It’s true that security is worse than last year, while the Taliban claim that they are responsible for the attacks. But this is not the case. Most of the kidnappings and criminal activities are done by local gangsters that are taking advantage of the corruption of the police and the Ministry of the Interior.

Take the case of Gail Williams, a British national killed last month on the streets of western Kabul. According to news reports, the Taliban were responsible and claimed that her NGO was converting Muslims to Christianity, and that the killing was therefore a warning. The NGO denies this claim.

One local who witnessed the attack said men on a motorcycle first tried to steal Williams' pocketbook and, when she fought off the attack, they shot her first in the legs, then in the head and left her to die. This is not a tactic of the Taliban. This is the work of local criminals taking advantage of the poor policing seen all over Kabul. Some even claim that these criminal acts are the work of the local police themselves, but this has not been proven at this point.

So, corruption is high. Not only are the Taliban losing support, but so is Karzai. People are ready for a new government and are looking for someone who can get a grip on Afghanistan’s security and development issues.

So much has been done toward development by the international community, and this can be seen everywhere. But the leadership is still weak, and this leads to many other concerns. We are all hoping, with the additional troops coming in January and in the summer, that security can improve and the presidential elections can take place as planned.

Comments on the Comments about Mumbai

In the aftermath of the Mumbai massacre, a number of Western pundits, both liberal and conservative, have offered some pretty irrational commentary. Most of them get off the main issue of the specific event and turn their commentary to a general condemnation of Islam and Muslims.

This is a counter-productive and flat wrong-headed approach. Have any of these writers bothered to tally up the Muslim victims of terrorist violence? In the Mumbai attacks, for example, there were also Muslim victims. These murderers, who claim they are killing for God, are no respecters of one’s religion. They gleefully kill anyone. Look at who is primarily dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan at the hands of these murderous thugs. It isn’t coalition troops or foreign aid workers; it is the local inhabitants – Muslims – who are dying in the tens of thousands.

Another argument that seems common is to claim that Muslims do not condemn these attacks – that the voice of Muslims is silent. Well, it only seems silent because the West’s ever-vigilant professional journalists are as intellectually lazy as their readers and viewers. Muslims are speaking out. Many have been murdered for doing so. In order to find this out, one must make the effort to read Muslim media. It’s out there.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, an association of 56 Islamic states, condemned the terror attacks in Mumbai stating that: “…these acts of violence contradict all human values and can be justified by nothing” (emphasis added).

A businessman from Dubai writes:

It is not enough for moderate Muslims to be revolted by the attacks in Mumbai as we have been revolted by the attacks on the New York office towers, Amman wedding, London transport system, Madrid trains, Beslan school, Jerusalem pizzeria, Baghdad markets and numerous other places. It is time to take a serious stand against these perpetrators and reclaim our religion.

Muslims must be more vocal in their sentiments regarding such criminals and Islamic states must counter this behaviour proactively. To borrow from an unpopular phrase, the Islamic states must launch a psychological pre-emptive strike against these terrorists and more importantly those who encourage them. Muslim preachers who fail to condemn terror must either be re-educated or discredited completely, and those who excuse terror using certain conflicts as a pretext must be silenced because the poison that they spread today will come back to haunt us all tomorrow.

Some media outlets can also act as a conduit for the terrorists’ propaganda. The stories of reformed radicals such as Sayed Imam, also known as Dr Fadl, must be highlighted to the ignorant minority. Our message must be clear: “These acts of violence contradict all human values and can be justified by nothing.”

Nothing.

Sultan Al Qassemi

These are just samples of the outpouring of anger and frustration I read in Muslim media. Muslims are not unaware of the hatred and anger their co-religionists are generating with these senseless crimes and they are just as perplexed at how to stop it as we are, even more so given that they ostensibly share the same religion as the murderers.

Then there are those who say the Qur’an tells Muslims to spread their religion by the sword. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact the Qur’an is full of statements showing that belief in any religion is an individual’s own concern and is a matter between the individual and God. Here are a few.

(2:256) “There is no compulsion in religion.” This is the clearest statement in the Qur’an against spreading religion by the sword.

(76:3) “We have truly shown him the way; he may be thankful or unthankful.”

(18:29) “The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe and let him who please disbelieve.”

6:104) “Clear proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever is blind, it is to his own harm.”

(17:7) “If you do good, you do good for your own souls. And if you do evil, it is for them.” (for your own souls)

It seems to me that the two predominant views portrayed in Western media about Muslims are either the condemnatory pieces that tar brush all Muslims with the Islamo-facist label, or those that help propagate their insane justifications for murder (Bush’s policies, Israeli policies, grinding poverty). Both are wrong.

The most common shared trait among all these writers is that they have not lived in a Muslim society – certainly not for any significant length of time. I’ve spent the greater part of the last six years living among Muslims in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve known Muslims who I’ve felt confident would lay down their life to protect me, just as I would do for them. I’ve seen Iraqi soldiers weep when their American counterparts were killed or wounded. I’ve seen the anger of Afghans when a foreign aid worker is killed or kidnapped. An unarmed Afghan bystander was killed in Kabul several weeks ago trying to thwart the kidnapping at gun-point of a French aid worker.

The vast majority of Muslims throughout the world are good, civilized human beings with whom we share many, if not most, values. This is, I believe, a fact. Yes, there are differences between Western societies and Islamic societies, but for the most part these differences are no bigger than a line drawn in the sand.

Playing into the Enemy's Hands

Below is an article from the Christian Science Monitor in the aftermath of the suicide attack on the Ministry of Information and Culture in Kabul. My analysis of this article appears below the article. The main point is that this is yet another example of the blissfully ignorant media playing right into the hands of the insurgents.


Insurgents increasingly employing complex attacks in Afghanistan
Thursday's strike on an Afghan ministry was carried out by a team using multiple attack methods.
By Anand Gopal Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 31, 2008 edition


Kabul, Afghanistan - A suicide bomber detonated explosives inside a government ministry Thursday, killing at least five and injuring dozens. The attack is the latest in a series this year showing insurgents' ability to penetrate the capital using complicated and daring methods.

"Security in the capital is decreasing day by day," says Ajmal Karimi, analyst with the Center for Peace and Conflict studies, a Kabul-based think tank.

He says that Thursday's attack, which involved multiple insurgents and included small-arms fire, is an example of the sophisticated methods increasingly used.

"With these types of attacks the insurgents are able to make people feel that they cannot trust the government to keep them safe even in the capital," he says.

At least three insurgents entered the Ministry of Information and Culture, located in a busy section of Kabul, Thursday morning. Witnesses say a gunfight broke out between security officials and the guerrillas, followed by a massive blast that destroyed much of the ministry's first floor. According to some reports, two insurgents escaped the scene.

The Taliban claimed responsibility, saying they were targeting foreign advisers. Insurgents may also have hit the ministry because it was one of the least secure.

Kabul is heavily guarded, with thousands of police patrolling, many main arteries closed to traffic, and blast walls surrounding most government buildings. Yet insurgents have staged numerous high-profile attacks.

"In these types of attacks, the insurgents may send one suicide bomber toward the target while another fighter distracts security forces with gunfire," says Mr. Karimi.

While the attack involved a small team, many complex attacks involve greater numbers of fighters and a more diverse combination of attack methods. According to an American intelligence official with the international forces, this year has seen a 6 to 12 percent increase in assaults involving more than 20 insurgents and multiple attack methods.

The blast comes amid talk of negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban. "Our enemies are trying to undermine recent efforts by the government for a peaceful solution to end the violence," President Hamid Karzai said in a statement.
•Danna Harman contributed to this report from Kabul.

My comments:

The attack is the latest in a series this year showing insurgents' ability to penetrate the capital using complicated and daring methods.

This statement is never explained or elaborated anywhere in the article. What “complicated” or “daring” methods were used to “penetrate” the capital? Kabul is a big city with over 4 million inhabitants. There is not a solid wall, fence or other barrier that rings the city. The main roads are not the only ways into the city.

"Security in the capital is decreasing day by day," says Ajmal Karimi, analyst with the Center for Peace and Conflict studies, a Kabul-based think tank.

And we have arrived at this conclusion based upon what evidence? By the way it is the Center for Conflict and Peace Studies (CAPS) and Ajmal Karimi strangely does not appear on the staff page as an analyst. He may very well work there, but if he does he is a low-level researcher.

The CAPS website states: “Armed groups in Afghanistan, just as in the Middle East and Pakistan, use the media to propagate their message, solicit both moral and financial support, and provide distant training and exchange of logistical information required to launch successful operations.”

The Christian Science Monitor, just like the main stream media plays right into the insurgents’ hands with uninformed reports like this one.

Kabul is heavily guarded, with thousands of police patrolling, many main arteries closed to traffic, and blast walls surrounding most government buildings.

Thousands of police in a large sprawling city of four million is hardly surprising. The “main arteries” closed to traffic are those in the immediate vicinity of the Presidential Palace, the Ministry of the Interior (National Police Headquarters), and the Ministry of Defense. Hardly surprising given the threat of VBIED’s (Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device). In fact if these roads were left open, one would then need to be critical of lax security. It only takes one VBIED in the right place at the right time to create havoc. This isn’t much different from in the US where traffic is no longer allowed around certain government buildings. (Have you tried to drive in front of the White House lately?)

Yet insurgents have staged numerous high-profile attacks.

I’m very curious as to how we have arrived at “numerous” high-profile attacks. Let’s see: January 2008, Hotel Serena; April 2008, Assassination attempt on President Karzai; July 2008, Suicide VBIED attack on the Indian Embassy; October 2008, Suicide BBIED (Body Borne Improvised Explosive Device) at the Ministry of Information and Culture. That’s only four even though the media would have us believe that Kabul is about to fall to the Taliban. So far that works out to one every three months, but it still misses a key point.

What do three of the four have in common? In three of the four cases lax security around what should have been recognized as potential high-profile targets invited the attacks.

In the case of Hotel Serena, not only was security lax in the first place, there was advance warning of an impending attack and no action was taken to tighten security even though on the day of the attack the Norwegian embassy was hosting a reception there.

In the Indian Embassy attack the road that should have been blocked to regular traffic was not. The Indian Embassy is right across the street from the Afghan Ministry of the Interior, which may have actually been the intended target. Given that the road is now blocked except for authorized traffic, a repeat is unlikely.

He says that Thursday's attack (Oct 30), which involved multiple insurgents and included small-arms fire, is an example of the sophisticated methods increasingly used.

Three guys charging a lightly-guarded gate firing AK’s is hardly sophisticated, in fact it is pretty basic.

"With these types of attacks the insurgents are able to make people feel that they cannot trust the government to keep them safe even in the capital," he says.

Clearly that is the goal of this type of attack, whether or not such attacks have achieved this goal is a matter of conjecture. Within hours of this particular attack it was business as usual in this busy market part of town.

Insurgents may also have hit the ministry because it was one of the least secure.

This is the primary reason the insurgents hit this particular ministry. The Ministry is located off a busy market street where hundreds of people are milling all day long. Security here was very lax with virtually no “stand-off” to even slow a potential attacker who simply had to sprint the twenty yards from the gate to the front lobby and detonate.

Again, Kabul is a large, sprawling city with more points of entry than can be properly guarded by even a million police officers and yet there have been only four “high-profile” attacks this year (the year of the greatest number of attacks nation-wide). In at least three of the four attacks there were significant security lapses that contributed to creating conditions conducive to attack.

The enemy exploits perceived weakness. That should be expected. As hardening and awareness reduces opportunity, the enemy looks for new opportunities. That is why one cannot become complacent. We are facing a thinking enemy. It is idiotic to imagine that he will not adjust his tactics and methods to counter our actions. The fact that he does so is not indicative of increased capability on his part or deteriorating security on our part.

While the attack involved a small team, many complex attacks involve greater numbers of fighters and a more diverse combination of attack methods. According to an American intelligence official with the international forces, this year has seen a 6 to 12 percent increase in assaults involving more than 20 insurgents and multiple attack methods.

So what if they fail? As they have in all cases. The fact that a group of attackers uses hand grenades and small arms, makes an attack “complex” by military definitions, but this does not equate to “sophisticated” in the civilian sense of complication.

By the way, total casualties for the year are actually down significantly from last year. So despite the alleged increase in “sophistication” and “complexity” the attacks are less efficient. Higher concentrations of insurgents are not a liability to us because we have them out-gunned. When they choose to mass, they are easier to detect, target and kill.

Is This the Sort of Change You are Looking For?

Obama has nothing to say while his supporters threaten physical violence against those who disagree with his positions, destroy McCain signs on private property, burn Republican offices, and conduct character assassinations on ordinary citizens who have the temerity to disagree with their candidate (Joe the Plumber).

This man who may be sworn to uphold the Constitution is silent on the underhanded stifling of public discourse by his own staff. I can't believe he does not know it is going on. Where John McCain tried to calm people who shouted obscenities about Obama at a rally, Obama is silent when his partisans do the same. (Actually, in the case of "Joe the Plumber", Obama and his running mate gleefully contributed to the character assassination. So no, I would not accept any profession of innocence on Obama's part to his campaign's fascist tactics. But then, what would one expect from a Socialist?)

Below is an example of some of the tactics being employed by the Obama campaign that the mainstream media, fully in bed with the Obama campaign, say nothing about.

The Obama campaign refuses to comment on this incident, claiming it is a Secret Service matter even though it was initiated by their offices. The Secret Service is conducting an "investigation" and does not comment.

Note that no one is denying the incident, they are simply refusing to comment. The mainstream media ignores it. You can bet that if the McCain campaign had done the same thing, this would all over the news.

So read this personal account of a private citizen who dared say what she thought of Obama to one of Obama's campaign volunteers.

On Wednesday the 1st of October I received a call on my cell while in the car with my husband. It was a woman who identified herself as calling from the Obama Campaign. The phone # she called from was 903-798-6020 which lists as "Obama Volunteers of Texarkana" (Texas).

She asked if I was an Obama supporter to which I replied: "No, I don't support him, your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the State Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time." I hung up.

Thursday, October 2, I answered the front door to find the Secret Service. Immediately I thought of the call and was furious that apparently you are not allowed to call Obama a Socialist without the Secret Service coming to investigate. Instead, they asked me about the following comment, relayed by the Obama Volunteer of Texarkana who called me, unsolicited on my cell phone: "I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor."

My husband laughed and told them “No, she called him a socialist but she never said a word about him dying.” I gave them my actual quote. The woman asked insolently “Oh? Well why would she make that up?”

I replied that I supposed she wasn’t happy about what I said about her candidate and the Agent said “That’s right, you were rude!” The last time I checked being rude wasn’t a crime in America.

Luckily the big file they had gathered on me didn't indicate mental instability or a past life of stalking/crime, however they did want to know how I felt about Obama.

That was my limit. I told the Agent in no uncertain terms that my thoughts were not pertinent to their investigation, that this was America and the last time I checked I was allowed to think whatever I wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service. In fact, even if I had said what she claimed, that isn't a threat. I told them (again) and my husband verified that the statement reported by Obama's volunteer was a lie. I asked them if there was a tape of the call and they said no.

I said, "So on the word of a ticked off Obama supporter you are on my porch with no other evidence and you want to question me about my THOUGHTS!?"

They informed me that there was no evidence she was an Obama supporter…someone calling from his campaign…are you kidding?

I was not allowed to know the name of my accuser at which point they informed me that it wasn't like I was in a court of law, YET, as if this was a good thing. I recognized this as a veiled threat. I told them I would happily go to court since I did nothing wrong and at least then my accuser would have to face me rather than sending the thought police to my house.

They then said they were trying to do me a favor, that they came to me first before “embarrassing you by going to all your neighbors and family”, another threat?

I told them to be my guest and talk to whomever they wanted but they weren’t going to investigate my thoughts on my porch.

They also informed me that it would be easier if the next time a supporter calls me I just say "Yeah sure count me in, or just hang up" apparently so she won't get her undies in a bundle and give them more useless trips. Yeah right.

I said "Look, someone calls me unsolicited on my cell phone to ask me to support their candidate and I can't tell them why I don't?" I said I was sorry they made a wasted trip but if they had a problem with some made up lie they needed to go talk to her about it because it wasn't my fault they had to drive from Houston for nothing.

At one point I went inside and got a notepad to record their badge numbers and they refused to show me their badges. They had done the quick flip when they arrived. I asked for a card and the female Agent refused to give me one stating “You’re not going to get a card.” The male Agent gave me a card and told me I could contact Houston with any questions.

The fact that the volunteer lied, the fact that the Secret Service came to my house to question me about my thoughts and feelings and threaten to embarrass me to my neighbors and go to court if I didn’t cooperate is not really the tragedy here. Because that girl on the phone doesn’t have the pull to send the Secret Service to my home. Someone high in the ranks of a campaign working for a man who may be the next President of the United States of America felt comfortable bringing the force of the Federal Government to bear on a private citizen on nothing but the word of a partisan volunteer.

I want to file a counter complaint that false charges were made, that a false report was given to a peace officer. The Secret Service told me I cannot because they will protect the identity of the complainant. I also want the file they have on me destroyed and I want to know that my phone isn’t tapped, etcetera. I am hearing a lot of “Out of my Jurisdiction”.

Do I also hear jackboots?

Jessica Hughes
Lufkin, Texas

Note: I have contacted several news organizations, Rep Gohmert, Sen Hutchison, the Atty General, Local Police

Analyzing an Analysis

In my previous post, blogger “Jim” and I have carried on a discussion about Obama’s birth origins. During that discussion, Jim offered a link to a FactCheck “investigation” and “analysis” of the suspect digital image of Obama’s alleged birth certificate that has been floating around the Internet since first posted on the left-wing blog, “Daily Kos” in June. Jim averred that this “analysis” was convincing. I disagree and offered to explain why. Here is that explanation.

This was one of those FactCheck postings that given the seriousness of the subject, was far too cute and unprofessional. In fact the entire tone, rather than sounding like a dispassionate scholarly refutation, came across as simple partisan gimmickry, this from an organization that claims objectivism. Start with Bruce Springsteen's song title and theme and FactCheck’s analysis goes downhill from there. With that opening, how could we expect a dispassionate analysis of facts?

FactCheck does not even get the chronological sequence of events correct in relationship to how the original questionable digital image wound up being passed around the Internet. To set the record straight, the image first appeared on “Daily Kos” on 12 June 2008, followed by Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website on 13 June. This was then followed by a clearly partisan and unscholarly posting by FactCheck on 16 June, which they reference in their 21 August post and which, like the “Daily Kos” and “Fight the Smears” postings, provoked more questions than it answered.

As FactCheck points out in their attempted damage-control, that original digital image came under immediate fire, as well it should have. Set aside for a moment the utter absurdity of the Obama campaign providing a far left blog with the “hot scoop” of getting to post the certificate first. However much I may disagree with what Obama stands for, or how much I may find things his campaign has done unethical or outright lies, I can’t believe they would be that stupid. I can’t imagine that they would not recognize such a move as sure to trigger a backlash rather than quiet the rumble about Obama’s place of birth. But I may be wrong, as some statements by an Obama staffer quoted below may indicate.

In FactCheck’s second paragraph we find the first major falsehood of their analysis. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.

No, they did not, as they themselves admit a little further on in their report. What they touched was a “certification of birth” which is not the same as an original birth certificate. Their own analysis admits as much. Second, what are their forensic qualifications to be passing judgment on any document? Birth record forgeries are among the most common and exceedingly easy to produce documents that would pass muster under all but the most trained eye. Third, what proof do they have that that document was the source of the original image released by “Daily Kos?”

We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.

Apart from my second point in the previous paragraph, there is the absurdity that naturalization papers also meet all the requirements for the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. That is not the issue. The issue is proof of natural birth within the United States, which carries a higher standard.

We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article.

The fact that the pictures are 1MB and larger does not equal proper digital documentation. Arm shadows, poor angles and lighting in addition to showing isolated segments of what they purport to be the document are all indicators of amateurish detective work by people who do not know the first thing about forensic digital photography.

I had been told that embedded EXIF data showed a March 2008 timestamp, but the images I was able to retrieve had no timestamp in the EXIF file, or any other EXIF data for that matter. If the former, then either the pictures were taken long before the issue came up and not so “recently” as the reporters claim, or it is just another glaring example of amateurism on the part of the FactCheck staff in not properly setting the clock in their digital camera.

If the latter, (the suspect timestamp and other EXIF data have been deliberately removed to inhibit investigation), then it is further proof of their blatant partisanship and an outright lie when they say they have not modified the images in any way. Any modification of a digital photo will alter the EXIF data and in most cases wipe out the timestamp.

While the FactCheck staffers may have spent time with a certificate, it is not necessarily the one from which the original image posted on Daily Kos, FactCheck’s report on 16 June, or still posted on “Fight the Smears” was created.

Given that what was posted created such a stir, a pertinent question would be, “if Obama had the document displayed in FactCheck’s most recent analysis all along, why did it take six weeks to get the “better” images posted?” If Obama had the certificate all along (and presumably still has it), why are better images still not posted on his own “Fight the Smears” site four months after the initial post?

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details.

Correct. The long form would provide definitive proof of having been born in the US since the hospital would be recorded on the certificate. Hawaii statute also allows a certification of birth for an infant born outside the US, who would then have a document like the one FactCheck examined.

The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department.

Irrelevant statement. The State Department has nothing to do with qualifying Presidential candidates. Their statement pertained to data required to obtain a passport.

We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

Did they, or did they not ask? What does trying to ask mean? Their lips moved and nothing came out? They failed to apply postage to the envelope and it never got to Hawaii DOH? Did they ask if it was possible to get the long form and who would be allowed to do so? They never say.

Most questions one would need ask are answered on the Hawaii DOH website. Any other questions could be answered by calling the phone number listed on the site between 7:15 AM and 6:00 PM HST. There does not appear to be much due diligence on the part of FactCheck’s staffers.

We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly.

Without a Power of Attorney from Obama, the “campaign” could not have simply requested the document from Hawaii DOH, nor would have Hawaii DOH produced the document without a Power of Attorney as stated in their own statute posted on the Hawaii DOH website. Both parties would most likely retain a copy of the Power of Attorney document as proof of proper transfer of the certification of birth. Again, due diligence and an understanding of basic law would have been appropriate here to lend some credibility to their “investigation.”

The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.

What was the rush? Why not get it right in the first place? Again, I am highly skeptical of “couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii.” How many times was this attempted? Were they smart enough to recognize the time difference and phone accordingly? Hawaii is not a Third World country with limited telephone access. I rather suspect that if you call during their office hours, you will get someone on the phone.

Secret information in a certificate number? Certificates are usually numbered in such a manner that they are unique. That is their purpose. There isn’t anything secret about it. If people working for a lawyer who wants to be President are this bloody clueless, then we are all in for a comedy of errors should this man get elected. He clearly can’t get smart folks to work for him or worse yet represent his interests to the public.

Now that FactCheck has put the number out there for all to see (two months ago now), why does “Fight the Smears” still have the original “questionable” document with the blacked-out number still displayed? One would like to think that Obama’s campaign would be careful to synchronize their online information with FactCheck’s after their little cooperative certificate photo-op. Clearly they are just as ham-handed as FactCheck.

We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect.

Again, how clueless can an alleged “investigator” get? The point of a forgery is to look correct. Clearly false and easily refuted information on a forgery nullifies the forgery’s value.

We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."

A staffer at DOH by law cannot answer questions about the content of a birth record without the individual’s permission (Obama in this case). None of the DOH staffers allegedly queried by either FactCheck or PolitiFact were queried in person with the actual document in front of them. They were only viewing digital images and they only commented that the image appeared to have all the necessary components. None provided any definitive response on content or that the document was definitely not a forgery. It isn’t that the DOH staffers are part of a conspiracy or trying to hide anything; they simply cannot legally answer the questions in a definitive manner without Obama’s explicit approval.

It does not take a vast network of people or government agencies to produce a forged birth record. People do it every day. All it requires is the right amount of money and contact with the “right” people. Again, this demonstrates not only that FactCheck is pretty amateurish in their investigating or understanding how these things are done, so is Amy Hollyfield at PolitiFact. Speaking of loopy, their referencing each other as “evidence” is sort of an evidentiary loop. If we reference each other’s faulty analysis, that makes it accurate or some such logic.

In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:



The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

This birth announcement does not state where the individual was born. The announcement does not state who provided the information to the newspaper. Some newspapers have staffers who peruse official notices at the court house and some court houses provide daily feeds to the press. We cannot draw conclusions about where the information came from simply by looking at the announcement. A real investigation would have at least asked how this particular newspaper got its information for birth announcements, death announcements and weddings back in 1961.

All we know for certain is that it states the fact of birth on a certain date to a specific couple who normally reside at a certain address. Of course at this juncture Obama Sr. did not reside at that address, he was in Kenya (a point not in dispute) with his real wife. It has nothing to do with future plans nor would any deep vast conspiracy be required to post such an announcement. The fact that an alleged and unnamed pro-Hillary “blogger” made the conclusion stated above is also irrelevant to proving anything. Clearly his standard of proof, and that of FactCheck, is pretty low if this birth announcement sways their judgment.

We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"?

Frequently asked by whom? What difference would that make? Why would you ask that sort of question of someone who might not even have been alive when Obama was born, let alone have any first-hand knowledge of how the data was originally submitted?

He [Kurt Tsue] also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."

It is sufficient perhaps except for proving natural birth for the purpose of running for President. Methinks that one is slightly out of the realm of what a truly rational person would call “reasonable” usage.

Were FactCheck’s analysis a bit more professional, I’d expect to see more than the three sources they list. After all, they are purporting to be providing objective analysis that can be replicated. In fact, I’d expect to see a footnote for each quote they’ve included as well as references to appropriate statutes applicable to the issues at hand. As damage-control for their ham-fisted 16 June piece, this analysis is pretty shoddy and ham-fisted in its own right.

I didn’t have any objection to their pointing out the many equally shoddy criticisms and theories that emerged after the original document was put online. There were and are indeed many, but don’t mockingly criticize people who express skepticism of what appears to be a bogus online document. It is exceptionally easy to produce electronic images that portray just about anything and the vast majority of the public viewing them do not have the skills or tools to differentiate between real and fake, even though there are plenty of wannabe forensic specialists out there. There should be no surprise that the original image provoked more questions than it answered.

Of course all this is secondary to the very simple and straightforward solution that Obama himself refuses to take, namely take a copy of his long-form birth certificate, if one exists, to a judge or group of judges. Let them tell the public that “yeah, verily indeed ye have nothing to fear” and the situation would be put to rest with the finality of a stake through a vampire’s heart.

Obama refuses to do this. He’d rather take the route of obfuscating, prevaricating and dissembling rather than confront the accusation head-on (one he helped fuel with his own memoirs). He’d rather present his “evidence” to a bunch of amateur “investigators” who work for a friendly organization and who have not a clue on what to look for, what questions to ask, or how to properly document their pseudo-investigation.

Then again, it is quite possible that this is the only course Obama can take because he really cannot produce the long-form birth certificate since it does not exist. That doubt will always be there until Obama puts it to rest in a forthright manner, if he can. If he can’t, then Obama really ought not be President not for where he may have been born, but because he has lied to the American public and sought the office on false pretense.