"I'm Sorry, So Sorry, but You Had it Coming": Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Carefully Crafted "Confession" Fools Only the Foolish

During each installment of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly shares what he considered to be the “Most Ridiculous Item of the Day.” In that spirit, Spy the News! today offers the “Most Blatantly Dishonest Statement of the Day.” The newly confessed mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who also admitted to beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearle and planning nearly every major terrorist attack in the world between 1993 and his capture, uttered the following “apology” for some 9/11 casualties during a military tribunal (transcript available here):

When I said I'm not happy that 3,000 been killed in America, I feel sorry even. I don't like to kill children and the kids.

Unfortunately for Daniel Pearle, KSM’s “sorrow” for killing so many Americans on 9/11 did not dissuade him from savagely beheading Pearle on camera for the world to witness the following year. There is likewise no evidence of sorrow in any of the 31 terrorist actions or plots for which KSM claimed responsibility, including the Bali bombing pictured at right. Pages 17-19 of the tribunal transcript list each of the plots he allegedly planned according to his own confession. If KSM’s confession is accepted at face value, he would be considered history’s greatest terrorist mastermind, a jet-setting jihadist of unparalleled achievement. Yet that begs the question, did he actually plan and orchestrate this long list of planned attacks, or is he merely taking credit either for personal aggrandizement or to protect his al Qaeda co-conspirators? I find it highly improbable that KSM was involved with each of these plots to the level that he now alleges. His Oscar-worthy expression of "sorrow" fits neither his known personality nor his jihadist commitment, and thus should only be considered a tryout for Best Actor rather than as an expression of any semblance of humanity. Read the list of actions he claims responsibility for again, and you will find no remorse, no sorrow, no tears. You will only find hate and a heretical religious fervor.

It is not uncommon for a prisoner facing no hope of release to confess to multiple crimes or terrorist acts for a variety of reasons, ranging from hopes for assignment to a more exclusive prison facility than a common criminal would receive to diverting investigative attention away from his or her accomplices. A careful reading of KSM’s testimony suggests that he viewed his appearance before the tribunal as a method for judicial martyrdom and a public relations windfall. KSM revealed his understanding of world media and displayed remarkable skill in his ability to cast himself as a sympathetic figure to other peoples and nations “oppressed” by America.

He compared Bin Laden to George Washington and claimed that using current American criteria for declaring a warrior for "independence" to be an "enemy combatant," George Washington could have been classified one as well. Of course, KSM omits the fact that the American colonies formally declared their independence, formed an organized military service, and established an autonomous war time government. To my knowledge, radical Islamic terrorists have not done any of these and thus represent no declared or recognized nation, but I digress.

KSM artfully seized on rising anti-American sentiment in Latin America by condemning America for “invading” Mexico and stealing two-thirds of its territory in the name of Manifest Destiny in the nineteenth century. His testimony covered a broad range of historical and religious comparisons. He appeared to know instinctively how best to manipulate the media coverage of his confession to satisfy the anti-Bush appetite of the liberal media. He believed it would likely be his last opportunity to be heard.

There are some in the media who believe KSM’s statement that he was tortured by the CIA rather than interrogated, and others see similarities between his expressions of sorrow and the torture-induced “confessions” of war crimes the North Vietnamese extracted from American POWs, including Senator John McCain. McCain wrote about such confessions in great detail in his memoir Faith of My Fathers, and even a cursory comparison of those cruelty-induced confessions with the boastful admissions of KSM should convince anyone that KSM made no statements under duress at the tribunal and was not tortured into a confession, as our POWs were, in grotesque and unspeakable ways. To compare the two situations is an insult to the courageous suffering America POWs endured in Vietnam.

It is fascinating that many in the media accept KSM’s word as unassailable truth when he stated he was tortured by the CIA prior to his transfer to Guantanamo, but they omit his testimony that he was not tortured in any way at Guantanamo and that his confession was in no way induced by any tactics or made under duress. Selective trust in a terrorist is a dangerous mentality, and it clearly illustrates that some in the media trust a confessed terrorist mastermind responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide more than they trust President Bush. Media Bias? You decide. Spy The News! is confident of which one Daniel Pearle and the 9/11 victims would trust.

Washington Post "Arkinizes" the Army Again: Claims Army and FEMA Synonymous with Disaster

Washington Post National and Homeland Security columnist William Arkin, recently and appropriately condemned for claiming that U.S. military personnel in Iraq are mercenaries, has fired another salvo across the Army’s bow, with stray rounds directed at FEMA for good measure. Arkin’s scathing columns consistently contain sheer venomous criticism, declaring only disaster in every government and military enterprise, but never offer constructive suggestions for improvement. He has become one of the media’s primary Monday Morning Quarterbacks, whining about what the Army, or in this case the Army and FEMA, should have done differently, always after the fact when the results are obvious for everyone to observe.

Yesterday’s column, another attempt to depict the Army as incompetent, included what Arkin apparently viewed as the ultimate insult he could heap upon the Army: likening the Army to FEMA, the federal agency that was blamed by Louisiana’s inept leaders for their own failures to evacuate and assist storm victims. With the help of willing media who seized upon haphazard rescue efforts as somehow being President Bush’s fault, blame for all Katrina-related tragedies and failures was directed at FEMA, which continues to wear, unfairly, the labels of “gross neglect,” “incompetence,” “disaster,” and “bureaucratic tragedy,” to name only a few terms Arkin associated with FEMA. Army personnel should closely observe what Arkin wrote about FEMA, because he painted the Army with the same unfairly tainted brush, implying that whenever FEMA or the Army are involved, disaster is sure to follow.

Arkin refers to FEMA trailers and mobile homes that could have helped the homeless in Louisiana but were under-utilized which are now being sold at auction, and cites this as an example of FEMA’s incompetence. What Arkin conveniently omits, however, is that the trailers were available and in the process of shipping to New Orleans, but the New Orleans City Council, over Ray “chocolate city” Nagin’s objections, REFUSED to allow the trailers into areas FEMA had determined were suitable for their installation. The fact that Nagin, who did absolutely nothing to prepare his city for such a storm despite numerous FEMA and National Weather Service warnings, was literally pleading with his own city council and stubborn New Orleans residents who didn’t want trailers in their neighborhoods, is a clear refutation of Arkin’s condemnation of FEMA. Were the trailers a perfect solution? No, but what would have been? It is true that many of the trailers later developed maintenance problems due to excessive usage. The ideal solution would have been the city of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana utilizing school buses and other available resources days in advance to evacuate those at most risk. Instead, images of school buses submerged in Katrina floodwaters demonstrated where the real incompetence occurred: in the New Orleans city government and the Louisiana governor’s office.

For a true account of why the trailers, which FEMA spent $2.6 billion to acquire, turned into a fiasco, read NBC correspondent Ron Mott’s report from December 2005 titled “Empty Trailers, Reluctant Neighbors: FEMA has the mobile homes, but no one can agree where they should go.” As this report from a network that Arkin surely considers credible confirmed, “500 trailers are arriving every day, but they just sit there because no one wants them in his backyard.” Racial prejudice and fears of crime and traffic, all exhibited by suburban residents (not the Bush administration, despite Spike Lee’s film), kept the trailers out of New Orleans, not FEMA neglect.

It is unfortunate but not surprising that Arkin ignores the only actual valid comparison that can be made between FEMA and the Army: neither can deploy nor utilize its resources to benefit others without executive orders to do so. FEMA could not provide the mobile homes to those who needed them because the New Orleans City government refused to permit it. Likewise, the Army could not prepare for or deploy in Iraq in the manner it preferred because elected and appointed civilian executives chose otherwise. Arkin compares FEMA “incompetence” and lack of preparedness for future disasters with the Army’s alleged lack of preparedness for fighting wars in the Middle East, citing inadequate Arabic language training, and failure to understand Iraqi Army dynamics as reasons “the mess we are in.” According to Arkin:

But the Army, the "professionals," the military men with experience and doctrine and integrity, are not only supposed to have the backbone to speak up, but also the ability to see the right way.

Throughout the 1990's up until today, instead of preparing the institution - training and equipping - to fight in the Middle East and then specifically in Iraq, the Army's mind seems to have been elsewhere. . . .

As current Iraq commander Gen. David H. Petraeus said in his own confirmation hearings, "We took too long to develop the concepts and structures needed to build effective Iraqi Security Forces..."

The "we" here is the Army. These are Army decisions.

Arkin makes cursory reference to former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and former Ambassador Bremer as having made poor decisions, but he places most of the blame on the Army for not having “the backbone to speak up.” Unfortunately, merely speaking up rarely convinces civilian executive leadership to follow the advice given. This lesson is perhaps the only comparison that may be valid between Vietnam and the Iraq War. Military leaders, including Senator John McCain’s father, were well acquainted with and loudly advocated effective strategies but were routinely denied permission to wage a full war because civilian leadership was determined to fight a limited war while grappling with anti-war elements on the political front. There is wisdom in our constitutional division of military command authority, with an elected official as Commander in Chief, but there is also much opportunity for political goals to interfere with and ultimately prevent victory.

Military leaders during the Vietnam War, for example, viewed arms and supply shipments from Russia and China into North Vietnam as intolerable and warned that the war could not be won without stemming the flow from those nations. The civilian leadership in Washington feared that destroying weapons shipments would incite Russia and China into joining the war, and refused to permit any actions against the shipments. As a result, the North Vietnamese received a steady supply of advanced anti-aircraft systems and other important weapons which assured the successful air and land defenses of Hanoi and other major cities. Senator McCain was shot down by those advanced air defenses and suffered 5 years of beatings in POW camps because of that civilian leadership decision. Arkin seems to believe that the military needs to “speak up” and is responsible for not doing so, but clearly when the ultimate decision making power rests in the civilian authority, that is also where ultimate responsibility for the result should rest.

I wrote extensively in a previous post about military strategy decisions in Iraq made largely for political reasons by civilian leadership, specifically the Civilian Provisional Authority (CPA), headed by Ambassador Bremer. Most of these decisions were not the preferred strategy of the Army. Apparently it is difficult for an anti-military journalist like Arkin to accept the idea that our military rarely is permitted to engage enemies on the terms and with the level of force our military recommends. The Army has one goal: victory, with whatever force is necessary to achieve it. Civilian leadership, elected or appointed usually possesses entirely separate political goals, with victory defined by very narrow political accomplishments.

As is evident in one of our major parties, among elected officials victory in Iraq is neither expected nor apparently even desired. No amount of “speaking up” by the Army will convince the current Democrats in Congress that this war can be won. They voted unanimously to approve General David Petraeus to take command of the war and days later were working to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush’s troop surge that General Patraeus recommended and was selected specifically to implement. They are simply too heavily invested politically in making sure this war ends in failure while pinning that failure on President Bush and the Republican Party to listen to any “speaking up” from the Army.

While journalists like Arkin make factually incorrect comparisons between FEMA and the Army, ascribing disaster to both entities, it is important to remember that both are restricted to act only when ordered to do so by civilians. They are also similar in that both rely on elected officials to determine their budgets, and therefore their ability to improve equipment, train personnel, or expand duties. Criticism from without and within is important to the improvement of any government agency or armed services branch. However, Arkin’s attempt to blame the Army for decisions made by civilian leaders, or as he called it, to “FEMA-ize” the Army, offers nothing constructive to efforts to improve FEMA or the Army.

Arkin’s well publicized and roundly criticized statement that our military personnel in Iraq are “mercenaries” because they volunteer, are paid, and receive extensive benefits has its parallel in the media. Arkin and his ilk are propagandists rather than journalists because they volunteer to work in their field, are paid to bash the military and the Bush administration regardless of facts, and receive extensive benefits from their employers for doing so. Perhaps the U.S. military should replace “criticized” with “Arkinized” when referring to inaccurate and venomous media reporting of its personnel or actions.

Avoiding Mistakes in Iraq by Revising "Quagmire Quixote" Histories of Vietnam War

Napoleon Bonaparte once stated that “history is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.” During the Vietnam War, and in the intervening years since, liberal academia, in bed with liberal media, embarked on a joint operation I refer to as “Quagmire-Quixotism,” in which they tilted their collective eggheads against windmills of truth in Vietnam and published news headlines, body counts, and historical textbooks that ultimately convinced a majority of Americans that the Vietnam War was a mistake and the threat of Communism in the region had been exaggerated. American universities, including the one from which I obtained an M.A. in History many years ago, remain under the unyielding (even to facts) liberal rule of professors drunken with the wine of quagmire hysteria to the point that college course on the Vietnam War are anything but exercises in historical research or original thought.

To challenge the Quagmire-Quixotism professors with military facts or to place blame for failure in Vietnam on Congress, the Media, or the anti-war movement was truly a suicidal act for a graduate student, at least if one valued his/her GPA. Under silent protest, I dutifully digested Anti-American apology pieces posing as textbooks, such as America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975, The Ugly American, and other quagmire folklore. Liberal academia, of course, did not curb its voracious appetite for debunking and rewriting long-accepted historical records with just the Vietnam War. Not believing any American should be revered, even if doing so might be in the national interest, liberal history professors and eager graduate students set out to discover and publish any and all salacious accounts of presidential behavior. The resulting collection of theses, dissertations, and textbooks provided us with such important “facts” as Jefferson’s alleged sexual encounters with slaves, Lincoln's manic depression and latent homosexuality, and the debunking of the cherished story of Washington chopping down the cherry tree.

The Founding Fathers, under the poison pen of these revisionist historians, went from wise and inspired to white and despised, as historical focus shifted only to their race, their wealth, and their allegedly selfish motives. One of my children once asked, “is it true that Christopher Columbus was an evil man who killed Indians and took them as slaves as gifts for the King of Spain?” That was an interesting dinner conversation, but that was taught as historical fact in our local school. Not content with indoctrinating college age students, academia published texts designed to sow the seeds of liberal anti-Americanism even among the very young.

Fortunately, after decades of indoctrination, serious students of history are ironically using revisionism to debunk the debunkers, and the history of the Vietnam War is fertile ground for rescuing facts that have been slowly drowning in academia’s quagmire. A case in point is Mark Moyar's Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965. Having previously examined sections of the book, I was pleased to see TigerHawk quoting from it to defend the “slow” development of the Iraqi military under U.S. training and supervision. The reminders of General George Washington’s battlefield errors and the pitiful training and organization of American troops in the Revolutionary War should give pause to those who believe that by now Iraq should have assembled a fully functional national military. Our expectations are too high and our patience seems to be shortsightedly wearing thin.

What piqued my interest was TigerHawk’s reference to Moyar’s book as “excellent revisionist history.” That statement caused me to reflect on the idea that while “revisionist history” used to be a pejorative term for works that debunked America’s heroes, history has now been rewritten to such an extent by liberal academics that “revisionist history” today refers to rewriting the rewritten histories and biographies dominating all current textbooks and classrooms. Years ago in graduate school I could scarcely have imagined that I would recommend a “revisionist history” to anyone. Yet when one thinks of today’s alternative media, such as Fox News, conservative radio, and Internet bloggers, it is clear that all of these are in fact current efforts at revisionist history, attempts to assure that liberal-hijacked media and academia cannot provide unchallenged the “version of past [or present] events” people will agree upon in the present or future. There are two sides to every issue, especially depictions of war, lest one focus solely on the horrors of war while neglecting the reality that at times it is a means to a worthy end.

Historical scholarship such as Moyar’s Triumph Forsakenshould be, but is not, welcomed in America’s universities. Spy the News! recommends Triumph Forsaken for anyone who believes Vietnam could have and should have been an American political and military victory. It is also a suggested read for Bush Administration critics who have accepted the oft-repeated mantra that Vietnam and Iraq deserve the quagmire label. The book extensively discusses impatience as perhaps the greatest contributor to America’s disgraceful withdrawal from Vietnam, with that impatience displayed by politicians looking to make names for themselves, the media, and some within the U.S. military itself. Impatience appears once again to be leading the U.S. to potential failure in Iraq, and without proper historical perspective, we may be doomed to repeat previous mistakes. Thankfully through alternative media, unchallenged biased liberal historical perspectives are becoming, ironically, a thing of the past.