Lionel blog has moved!

To keep up with all the latest segments, just visit here.

Now let me get this straight. With all the problems the country faces, Weinergate is front and center. And why?

Boxers or Briefs? Look, I'm not going to insult your intelligence, of course I know why. His name is Weiner and the allegations of the subject matter of an alleged text photo was . . . you know. The same jejune and puerile humor quotient that brings us South Park and poop jokes is eating this story up. Sex, wiener jokes -- what more could you ask for? And it sure beats reporting. But to be perfectly fair and brutally honest, it's Weiner's equivocation that's causing he increased scrutiny. What was that line? It's not about the crime but the coverup. Had he covered up . . . wait, he did. And I'm not so sure what crime was committed, if any. But his reaction is, well, weird.

PARENTHETICAL ASIDE: I'll bet you, Ol' Tony wishes maybe he had pushed for the "Winer" pronunciation, but what are you going to do? Nothing could be finer than . . . but I digress.

Here's Weiner, the prince of prevarication, refusing to answer a very simple question.

No, that's not a gun in my pocket, but I'm still glad to see you. Call me old-fashioned, but how about this statement. And use it, Ant'ny if you want.

I never sent that or any pictures of my body or nether regions, clad or semi-clad, ever to anyone. Period. I don't know who this woman is. My account's been hacked and I've called the police and filed a formal complaint with the authorities.

Then he called it a prank and suggested that someone's trying to derail his real message or something preposterous like that. Is this the way a person denies involvement? And if he did do it, he's certifiably insane. Hasn't he ever heard of Brett Favre? Please, dear Zeus, say it ain't so.

TPM reports the following.

"Look here's the decision I made and you can disagree with it," he told TPM when asked for a clear answer on whether it was him in the photo, "that after two and a half days of statements that answer these questions that I'm not going to keep drilling into further details and further details, even one ... even the easy questions, even the obvious questions, even the ones I've answered before."

Weiner went on: "Because I don't believe in the idea you believe in that this will end. I have four separate emails from a New York Post reporter saying if you just answer this one question it will be over. You know people may not believe me, they believe Breitbart, whatever it is. I'm going to do the work I got to do and somewhere I've got to say I'm done talking about it. I'm going to decide what I'm going to talk about for the next several days and it's not going to be this."

Amazing.

The Arnold story consumes me. I'll be honest. I have nothing to hide. I'm not ashamed. I've blogged and commented on the subject, podcasted, name it.

Are you blind?! Look, let's be honest. Let's stop pussy footing and pretending that what's true isn't. This woman whom Arnold threw his marriage over is a beast. What the hell was he thinking? Or not. Good God, Arnold, we know that steroids have deleterious effects on a host of functions, was eyesight one of them?

This in no wise suggests that sullying a marriage and discounting marital vows is OK provided your paramour is attractive or handsome, but for crying out loud, Arnold!

I Tweet therefore I am. And would someone please explain to Arnie's daughter that if she wants privacy, then shut up! First, let's look at what the professional public victim writes about her sleazeball Daddy-O's dalliances.

Katherine Schwarzenegger, the eldest of the grab-happy governator's kids with Maria Shriver, scrubbed a message from her Twitter page that hinted she was ready to reconcile with him.

"Sometimes we forgive people cause we want them back in our lives," read the message that Katherine grabbed from another Twitter user and posted to her own account over the weekend.

On Monday, the post was deleted. Note to Katherine: Kate, there's no such thing as deleting a tweet.

"As my healing begins after this crazy week I ask for privacy!" she later tweeted. "This is only the business of my family and please respect that!" [Emphasis supplied]

Can you believe this kid? Look, I'm not making this up.

You see, nothing exists if it's not Tweeted. People don't experience life or death unless there's an accompanying Tweet or self-absorbed Facebook entry. These idiot kids -- and idiot adults, adolescents, in fact all people being idiots fall under this category -- have lost the concept of privacy and keeping things inside and internal. Not only that, people can watch and see and understand. Especially when YOU MAKE IT PUBLIC! Let me give you an analogy, albeit crude.

Picking your nose while you drive. Have you ever been driving and at a traffic light you look over and next to you is some guy diggin' for gold, knuckle deep nostril mining? He doesn't have tinted windows and you can see as clear as day this guy performing a makeshift digital lobotomy. That's what the comfort level of your car provides. It creates the illusion that you're invisible. That you can't be seen. That's Twitter and Facebook. And for the life of me I can't understand why.

But, God, I love this story.

On May 11, 2011 CE, during my PIX 11 commentary (contained and referenced infra), I made a prediction of sorts as to what I believed the PsyOps (Psychological Operations for the unenlightened) folks would plant, er, I mean find in bin Laden's palatial $1M compound: a $1M compound, the exemplar of sheer unmitigated squalor, disguised as a ramshackle hovel worth at best a quarter of said price. Listen carefully at approximately the 2:40 mark and marvel at my prescience, my vatic countenance. I amaze myself and my peers. Mr. G's unable to contain himself as he wonders aloud to anyone who'll listen how I am able to augur the future and read the entrails of the faux terrorism beast.

In a most authoritative and snarkily-penned piece entitled 'Extensive' porn stash: Three ways US has tried to sully bin Laden's image, The Chritsian Science Monitor's Brad Knickerbocker provides in part the following.

Officials revealed Friday that among the computers and other electronic storage devices found in bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, was a stash of pornography described as “extensive” in several news reports.

Although bin Laden did not have access to the Internet, his couriers brought him flash drives, computer disks, and other recorded messages.

As reported by Reuters, officials are not yet sure where in the compound the pornography was discovered or who had been viewing it – specifically whether or not bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials.

But the implication is there, and it does the terrorist mastermind’s image no good – particularly in a part of the world (and in a movement) marked by conservative traditions and attitudes toward sex.

The release of the videos and photographs of bin Laden, together with the growing list of his personal character quirks are "part of the US government's effort to discredit him after his death so … he doesn't become a martyr in the eyes of the Arab youth," former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke told ABC News.

Now, this shouldn't shock anyone. That's the way the game's played. But don't expect the barking seals (not the ninja Team Six kind) and trained monkeys of the corporate-controlled media to utter a word of his. No, they relay the story without so much as an afterthought.

But, just remember: You heard it here first.

Are you confused? Do you just not know what to think or whom to believe? Join the club. My head's splitting just trying to keep straight the ever-changing story line of UBL getting capped by SEAL ninjas.

Is Usama bin Laden (and when did he officially lose the Osama in the first place?) or the initialism UBL alive? Was he killed? Was he killed Sunday ninja-style by the super stealthy SEAL Team 6? Was Team 5 not available? Since when did we become so conversant with SEAL Team divisions? (This is akin to our autodidact tendencies that gave us overnight expertise in hurricane taxonomy and nomenclature, see CAT 5 hurricanes). Was he killed in Tora Bora? Did he die of renal failure? Earthquake? Postnasal drip? The heartbreak of psoriasis?

How dare you ask for proof! But note that by merely asking whether he had died before this week implies that the government's lying when they say they terminated him with great prejudice Sunday. And if they're not lying and he's dead, then they have to be even more incompetent than I can even imagine -- if that can be imagined. But what about the now dreaded SEAL Team 6? Whom did they whack? And did UBL fight back? Did he return fire? What about his 29 year-old wife? (His favorite.) Then there's his daughter? Where are they? In Pakistani custody. Uh oh. We royally pissed them off when we accused all of Pakistan's government along with its dreaded ISI intelligence organization. I'm three paragraphs deep into this piece and all I'm doing is asking questions. And where are the mainstream media? [N.B. PIX 11 NEWS is exempt from any indictments I have about shoddy and lackluster journalism. It is the exemplar for journalistic probity.]

This week has been the most incredible hodgepodge of mind-blowing facts and allegations after almost a decade of no real news as to UBL. I've spent hours in my podcasts trying my best to sift through the myriad theories and at least give it the ol' college try just to pretend I understand. I try to respect folks' feelings and the almost stubborn and immutable resistance to distrusting their government, at least its official story.

Stop exploiting 9/11 victims' families. The poor families of loved ones and first responders and cops and firemen and just plain old regular folks who were vaporized, crushed and compacted into organic smithereens on that terrible Tuesday -- my heart breaks for them. I hate the way pols and parasitic opportunists exploit these folks as props and photo-op extras. If there's a hell, these creeps will be in the smoking section. I have a fantasy that some high falutin' member of The Fed calls the family members into a room and whispers, "Look, we're taking care of you. You know the $9B we 'lost' in Iraq? I've got it in the back. We're giving each of you $10M because if we can give it to bail out foreign banks, we can scrounge up an extra $100M for you." A man can dream.

Channeling Bill Hicks. This comedy maestro once wondered who the Gideons were who placed Bibles in hotels. Were they from Gidea? He likened them to ninjas. Enter the now elusive, stealth warriors: SEAL Team 6.

I read recently of an intelligence expert wondering if ST6 was sheep dipped. I love the concept and find the idea fascinating. Impress your friends with this piece of information. Sheep dipping is defined as follows.

U.S. intelligence term for camouflaging or disguising the true identity of equipment or individuals, especially for the use of military equipment or services--including personnel--in clandestine intelligence activities, generally under the direction of a nonmilitary sponsor.

This still blows my mind. While the world lauds the capping of UBL by U.S. SEALS, in an October 2007 interview that Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto gave David Frost, she claimed that UBL was “murdered years ago.” In the interview, Bhutto identified Omar Sheikh as the man who allegedly whacked UBL.
Bhutto was assassinated on Dec. 27, 2007 in a bomb attack in Rawalpindi during an election rally. That'll teach her.

Confused?

People can't write. They're beyond horrible. The simplest thought transferred to the written word is virtually impossible for so many. Why? Because we don't write anymore. We simply don't craft ideas or thoughts in writing. We've lost handwriting, a personalized signature. We write in upper and lower case. If we write at all. We don't craft letters, love letters, billets-doux. Nada. Niente. Nihil.

We'll jot or dash a Morse Code, hieroglyph replete with an emoticon or the increasingly nauseating LOL. But I've changed my mind about LOL. LOL has more often than not saved a message from the wrong interpretation. And why?

Whether I'm "write." I'll admit something that I never thought I'd say: Emoticons actually serve a purpose. Because people are such lousy writers. I can't count the number of times I've read something with a sarcastic tinge when in fact it was a harmless email but pathetically written. And you'd think that as we write more, naturally our writing would improve. But it doesn't.

"A computer terminal is not some clunky old television with a typewriter in front of it. It is an interface where the mind and body can connect with the universe and move bits of it about. (from Mostly Harmless)" -- Douglas Noel Adams

And I'm not talking about books or articles or anything of note or length. I'm talking about just conveying a thought. How many times have you read an email from someone in a way that made the writer seem to be rude or snide when in fact nothing of the kind was intended? This is precisely why hearsay is eschewed as an evidentiary tool because inter alia

"You write in order to change the world, knowing perfectly well that you probably can't, but also knowing that literature is indispensable to the world... The world changes according to the way people see it, and if you alter, even by a millimeter, the way ... people look at reality, then you can change it." -- James Arthur Baldwin

Social "nutworking." Enter Twitter. Now, if you really want to read some real beauts, just get a Twitter account. Please note the Tweet I received from someone who'll remain nameless. Tell me what he/she means.

@LionelMedia Your dumbSimply putIf Obama wasnt born in USA he wouldnt be able to even run 4 PresPlease dont tell folks where u went 2 school

Here's another one. Tell me what this person's saying or asking.

@LionelMedia Are you that big an idiot? You're bashing @BarackObama for not providing a document that HAWAII ADMITTED they wouldn't provide.

OK, maybe it's the 140 character limitation. Though, I doubt it. Perhaps its the size of the keyboard. Or, here's a shot in the dark, maybe it's because THESE PEOPLE CAN'T WRITE! Maybe they've absolutely no idea how to take a thought and write it. That simple. But that never gets in the way of the message's hubris.

Let's not leave Facebook out of the equation. This was a private message I received. I've redacted this person's name, but I'm not even sure that was necessary. I swear this is what was sent to me.

Hi, mr. Lionel. Im _____. Im ___, n, I live, in bklyn, 53yrs. I hv seen, ppl. come, n go, live, n die. Im a well, respctd, edu, n dicipline pers. I just join, pix 11, cuz, I lk, d way, they deal, w d prob. of d comunity, in n.y. So, I consider my self, part of d fam. I lk d way, u, present, ur show, on tv. Im a fan, of u. So, in d future, Ill lk to hv, more, comunication, w u, cuz, u r, a very smart pers. I hope, u, accept, my frndship. tnk. u.

I specialized in stupid criminals as a prosecutor. These are as stupid as it gets. The story is best told in its video form. Enjoy.

ST. AUGUSTINE, Fla. -- First Coast News obtained the 34-minute police recording made the morning two University of Florida basketball players and a team manager got arrested.

Players Erik Murphy and Cody Larson and manager Joshua Adel apparently don't know they're being recorded, since they admit to breaking into cars and underage drinking. Police put the recorder in the backseat of the police car.

They were arrested early Sunday morning outside Scarlett O'Hara's bar in St. Augustine.

In the recording, player Murphy makes up several possible stories to pass on to police. Team manager Josh Adel rejects all of them, saying he told the players to stop breaking into cars.

But the recording also brings up issues like implied preferential treatment by Gainesville police agencies and different levels of punishment on the UF basketball team.

"Bro, do you know how f*** I am because of y'all dumb m***** f*******," Adel tells Murphy in the police car. "I'm fired. Like, you'll have another shot. I'm done. I have no second shot, bro."

"I don't have a second shot either," Murphy replies.

"And I told y'all to stop doing that," Adel says, referring to car breakins. "You did that."

"I know," Murphy says.

Murphy and Larson are charged with felony burglary while Adel faces a charge of principal to burglary. Police say Adel acted as a lookout.

"I'm getting you out of it," Murphy tells Adel.

"F*** that man," Adel says. "It doesn't matter. My job was supposed to, I'm supposed to be looking after y'all. And y'all are f****** going into f****** cars that I said not to."

While Adel and Murphy talked in the police car, police were still trying to track down Larson. Larson called Adel six times while they were in the back of the police car.

The two put Larson on speaker phone, so his voice is recorded by police too.

"They don't have anything on us. We're gonna get off," Murphy tells Larson.

"We're not getting off," Adel whispers to Murphy.

"Just tell him we are so he can come," Murphy whispers back to Adel. A second later, Murphy tells Larson on the phone, "Yo, we don't have anything on us. We're getting off bro."

Larson is still skeptical of his friends.

"So how are you passing the phone from you to Murph?" he asks.

"Cause the cops don't know I have the phone," Adel replies.

UF basketball coach Billy Donovan has suspended all three from all basketball-related activities until the police investigation is complete.

But the recording reveals that Murphy was thinking of ways to get out of the situation.

"You know what we could say. Listen, listen, listen. When we went back in, the dude was being a d***h*** to us and was like, 'You gotta leave.' I was looking for my wallet," Murphy tells Adel.

"Dude, come on man. ... That is a dumb G** d*** idea," Adel says.

Later, another story pitch comes from Murphy.

"We can get them in trouble too for letting us in when we weren't 21," Murphy says.

"Dude, don't even say that s***," Adel responds.

"No, f*** that. I'm pulling everything out," Murphy says.

"No you're not because that makes us look like a*******. That we're, that you two are wasted and f****** breaking in cars. That looks f****** dumb," Adel says.

"Whatever bro. I'm doing it," Murphy says.

Another clip implies they might get special treatment if they were closer to home at the University of Florida.

"Have you ever gotten arrested before?" Murphy asks Adel, who says no. "Then we could get off."

"There's no getting off. We're not in f****** Gainesville. They [St. Augustine police] don't give a f***," Adel says. "Do you understand I'll be fired and I have no chance of ever pursuing any type of career in basketball."

We asked UF spokesman Fred Demarest about the underage drinking and implication of preferential treatment in Gainesville. He replied via e-mail, "I cannot comment any further than what we've already said.

As for Adel's concerns that he would be treated differently than the players, Demarest wrote, "As for Josh, he is still part of our program right now. He is suspended from basketball related activities as well. We will not comment beyond that until more information is available."

This is a must read. A fascinating compilation of indicia of a relationship beyond ruin, on life supports and without any chance of success.

You know your relationship is over when … he informs you that he will be a millionaire some day and you should get in on the ground floor.

That’s one of the entries in Robert K. Elder’s new book, It Was Over When… (drawn from reader submissions on a similarly named website).

Here are a dozen more that you may or (hopefully) may not recognize:

“I asked him what his sexual fantasy was, and he said, ‘Two redheads.’ I’m a brunette.”
– Autumn

“I woke up, looked at my partner sitting on the edge of the bed, and realized that I absolutely detested the shape of his head.”
– Narie

“We went through the drive-thru window at a fast-food place and he ordered a fish sandwich and pronounced it ‘fill-ett o’ fish.’ He wasn’t joking, and I knew he was just too stupid to continue the relationship.”
– Alexa

“He cried during the last Lord of the Rings movie. (He cried when I broke up with him too.)”
– Kelly

“When we arrived at the wedding chapel, neither of us made a move to take off our seat belts.”
– LB

“He found my jeans on the floor and pulled them on, thinking they were his. They fit. And they looked kinda good. And he danced around in them for a second, reveling in the fit.”
– K

“He told me I ‘tasted like Aspirin’ when we kissed.”
– Cassie

“I asked him what he wanted to be doing in five years. He said, ‘Still driving a truck and finally be making real money at $15 per hour.’ He had already been working there for five years and had started the job at $13 per hour. (We lasted two weeks after that. And the clincher? When I had to give him a pen so he could sign my birthday card.)”
– Ma Shell

“It was over when he asked his cats what I wanted to do that day. In a doggy voice. (Only later did I find out that he named one of his cats after his favourite porn star.)”
– Mizz Gooch

“He started making plans for a joint vacation (after only four days of knowing each other) to New York’s Chinatown because he wanted ‘to learn more about my culture.’ I’m Korean.”
– AnemOne

“He told me that we couldn’t move in together because he’d feel guilty when he brought other girls home.”
– Natalie

“I got a Cooking for One book from my wife for Christmas.”
– Jake

This guy (pictured in jail frocks infra) Paul Evan Seelig, the owner of Great Specialty Bread Co., was found guilty of 23 counts of fraud for selling products that contained gluten and made dozens of customers ill. This master baker was sentenced Tuesday to between nine and 11 years in prison. Wow. WRAL.com provides this dispatch as to the Tar Heel State's public enemy numero uno.

The High Falutin' Rootin' Tootin' Gluten Con

"Deceit is part of who Mr. Seelig is," Superior Court Judge Carl Fox said during the sentencing hearing.

Seelig admitted during testimony last week that he lied when state investigators asked him about the products he sold as gluten-free. Defense attorneys said he did not deliberately mislead customers and blamed the inconsistencies on his supplier.

Many of Seelig's customers have Celiac disease, and ingesting gluten, a protein found in grains like wheat, barley and rye, can cause them symptoms ranging from diarrhea and abdominal pain to irritability and depression. Celiac sufferers carefully monitor their diet to avoid foods with gluten.

Seelig's customers originally brought their claims to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which turned the information over to Wake County District Attorney Colon Willioughby.

"When people knowingly put adulterated or contaminated food in the food chain and they know it's going to cause injury, I think it ought to be dealt with harshly," Willioughby said.

Fox said Tuesday that Seelig showed arrogance when testifying during the trial. He noted that customers trusted Seelig and thought he was their friend. Fox said he could understand why customers were so angry.

"In this court's mind, for you to have done what you did to these folks, you might as well have stabbed them. You might as well have beaten them," Fox said.

Seelig's attorney, Blake Norman, asked for leniency, given Seelig’s poor health and apparent mental problems.

“Clearly, there’s something mentally wrong with him, to be in business seven years and think that he could get away with this and could never get caught. I don't think throwing someone in prison will help solve that. He needs long-term cognitive therapy, and that’s not something get in prison," Norman said.

Fox said he had a hard time believing Seelig's claims of health issues.

As part of Seelig's sentence, he will undergo a mental evaluation. Fox also wants a health screen done on Seelig to determine if he is actually allergic to gluten, as he repeatedly claimed to his customers.

During the course of the trial, jurors heard from 23 customers who bought Great Specialty bread, only to be sickened after eating it.

Two of those customers spoke during the sentencing hearing.

"He gave me samples of what he led me to believe were gluten-free bread products," victim Zach Becker said. "He sat across the table from me and watched me eat poison."

Becker said for two weeks he ate Seelig's products and wrote about it on his blog devoted to living gluten-free.

During the sentencing hearing, Seelig apologized to his victims.

"I wish I could turn the clock back to 2009 and change my actions," he said. “I hope in their faith and in their hearts they have room for forgiveness. I pray each day that they will forgive me."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not regulate gluten labeling or levels.

"What we would hope is that this case becomes an illustration of why the federal government does need to move forward with determining what that level is because people can be harmed," state agriculture department spokesman Brian Long said.

There's a very simple rule when it comes to war, not only do we not know what we're doing, we have no idea what we're saying. POTUS has repeatedly said there will absolutely be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya, but there are reports of small CIA teams in the country. What, those aren't "troops"? Or are they merely teams? As you can tell, I don't believe anything these folks ever say about anything. And you thought Bill Clinton was tricky with his "is" parsing.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said last week that there would be no American ground troops in Libya "as long as I am in this job." Again, ground troops? What constitutes ground troops? Note also that Bob Gates is getting pretty sick and tired of this entire Libyan adventure. A real good hint was when he said said that Libya did not pose a threat to the United States before the U.S. began its military campaign against the North African country.[Source]

CBS reports that ground troops in Libya have in no wise been ruled out.

The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.

Ham said the operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.

He said NATO has done an effective job in an increasingly complex combat situation. But he noted that, in a new tactic, Muammar Qaddafi's forces are making airstrikes more difficult by staging military forces and vehicles near civilian areas such as schools and mosques.

The use of an international ground force is a possible plan to bolster rebels fighting forces loyal to the Libyan leader, Ham said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Asked if the U.S. would provide troops, Ham said, "I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that's probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail."

Let's hear it for consistency.

Two additional perspectives on POTUS's speech last night that will only serve to make you smarter.

The first is my LionelMedia podcast explaining in considerable length innumerable nuances that the nuancer-in-chief may have in fact nuanced.

Also, please enjoy my appearance with my colleague Sukanya Krishnan of the PIX 11 Morning News. She asks great questions and even drops in a Godfather reference.

You may download the West Point study that I referred to in my March 28, 2011, commentary here.

This December 2007 West Point study examines the background of foreign guerrilla fighters of all ideological stripes — jihadis, mujahedin, suicide bombers, name it — crossing the Syrian border into Iraq in 2006-2007 under the aegis, affiliation and rubric of al Qaeda. The study is based on a review of approxuimately 600 al Qaeda personnel files — you read me right, personnel files — seized by US forces in the fall of 2007, and analyzed at West Point.

And the absolute epicenter of jihadi recruitment is Darnah in the Cyrenaica district corridor of north-eastern Libya.

Oh, and one more question. Where do you think those freedom loving rebels are? Yep, you guessed it.

Follow my podcasts on the subject at LionelMedia, your one-stop shop for intellectual irrigation.

This handsome devil is Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi. He's the Libyan "rebel" leader and he said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime no allegedly aligned with us, the good guys. Here's what the Telegraph reported just yesterday.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".
Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.

Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.

Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country.
British Islamists have also backed the rebellion, with the former head of the banned al-Muhajiroun proclaiming that the call for "Islam, the Shariah and jihad from Libya" had "shaken the enemies of Islam and the Muslims more than the tsunami that Allah sent against their friends, the Japanese".

The fall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi might see the al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic terrorist groups filling up the void, US analysts have said.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) that was branded by the US as a terrorist organisation in May 2010 has been operating from its base in Algeria, and has now extended its reach to the borders of Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Chad and Libya, Fox News reports.

Gaddafi had earlier not only provided intelligence on the terrorists' operations to the US, but has also publicly spoken out against them.

Branding the group members as 'bad Muslims', Gaddafi said: "The security forces found a mosque in al-Zawiya. In a mosque! Weapons, alcohol, and their corpses - all mixed up together."

Now that the Libyan dictator has gone into hiding, many analysts have raised concerns whether southern Libya will become a magnet for jihadist groups.

Cully Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense who is now a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that the al-Qaeda affiliate might turn out to be an adaptive enemy.

"AQIM has found their niche. They are going to exploit that to the degree they can. They have the ability in the strategic interest in moving and being adaptable. One of the most high-profile cases was a British hostage Edwin Dyer, who was murdered after lengthy negotiations for his release stalled," Stimson added.

US Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz has described the AQIM as a "danger to the region".

If you're having a hard time getting your head around who are the good guys and the bad guys, let's add to that confusion. The Guardian (that's right, Sparky, foreign media) reported this in 2002.

British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. The latest claims of MI6 involvement with Libya's fearsome Islamic Fighting Group, which is connected to one of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants, will be embarrassing to the Government, which described similar claims by renegade MI5 officer David Shayler as 'pure fantasy'.

The allegations have emerged in the book Forbidden Truth , published in America by two French intelligence experts who reveal that the first Interpol arrest warrant for bin Laden was issued by Libya in March 1998.

According to journalist Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, an adviser to French President Jacques Chirac, British and US intelligence agencies buried the fact that the arrest warrant had come from Libya and played down the threat. Five months after the warrant was issued, al-Qaeda killed more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Now, in a moment of admitted "I Told You So," this is my March 21st PIX 11 News Commentary. 'Twas three days after the commencement of Operation Here We Go Again. And with great journalistic fanfare I merely read what international media sources and experts said about Libya, thus ignoring altogether anything from the snap-crackle-and-pop form of pathetic and feckless journalism that the impuissant media outlets are forced to produce. Watch at the 1:27 mark, I make it very clear who the rebels are.

As we say in the law res ipsa loquitur, "the thing speaks for itself." Well, let this thing speak. Volumes.

Here's a most limpid, most emphatic (then candidate) Joe Biden raising the specter of impeachment in 2007as he was preparing for his presidential run. He's appearing with MSNBC's hyper-salivating, blathering bloviator Chris Matthews. Here Biden makes it clear that bombing Iran without first securing Congressional approval would indeed be an impeachable offense. But yet as we bomb Libya without so much as a veiled or passing reference to Congress, Joe's apparently forgotten his mighty strong words.

But it's not just Joe. In a 2007 Q&A with the Boston Globe, then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama stated that the Constitution didn't give POTUS the unilateral authority to authorize a military attack unless it is was necessary and required to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

I guess he forgot.

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

While we're on the subject of changing one's mind (note I deliberately refuse to use the word lying), what about Presidential signing statements? I'm glad you asked. It's one of my favorite subjects. First, what are they exactly?

A “Signing Statement” is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3). [Source]

Watch Obama the candidate wax emphatic yet again.

And while we're at it. He's one more "broken promise." And I know that stuff happens, things change, circumstances vary. I know that. But you'd think that pols would always keep in mind that you should only say something or make a promise when you absolutely have to. That everything you say, everything, will be recorded and subject to scrutiny and careful inspection. I'm just saying ... .

If Bush 43 pulled this, the media and commentators, especially of the professional left, would be all over him. And rightly so. The Hill, in a piece entitled White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission by Sam Youngman and Jordan Fabian, reported the following. And it must be read in its entirety.

It's simply amazing. One of the most jaw-dropping examples of duplicity and inconsistent messaging. And it all happened in one day. In one day, less than a day actually, the White House both (a) wanted a regime change in Libya and (b) didn't want a regime change in Libya. It denied wanting a regime change but yet wanted to install a democratic regime.

It is simply amazing. And tragic. It's one thing when an administration is inconsistent about tax policy or spending or some domestic issue. It's quite another thing when the subject matter's war. And be not mistaken, this is about war. It's not about a no-fly zone, one of the most euphemistic terms for war ever; it's about committing this country and its treasure and its children to war and all of the horrors attendant thereto. Another war.

The White House strongly denied Tuesday that regime change is part of its mission in Libya, despite a statement earlier in the day that characterized the goal there as “installing a democratic system.”

Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, issued a statement acknowledging that President Obama would like to see a democratic government in Libya, but explained that the aim of the U.S. military’s intervention there is not to enact regime change.

“We're clarifying, as we’ve said repeatedly, that the effort of our military operation is not regime change, that as we actually say in this readout, it’s the Libyan people who are going to make their determinations about the future,” Rhodes said. “We support their aspirations, their democratic aspirations, and have stated that Gadhafi should go because he’s lost their confidence.”

Earlier on Tuesday, a White House-issued readout of a phone call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that installing a democratic system in Libya was a goal of the two leaders.

The statement said Obama and Erdogan had reaffirmed their support for implementation of United Nations security resolutions authorizing force in Libya. After noting that this would require a broad-based international effort, the statement said the two leaders “underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will.”

Rhodes said the unusual White House clarification came after reporting on the initial statement about the Obama-Erdogan call. The Hill had reported that the use of the world “installing” had suggested a U.S. goal in Libya was regime change.

The White House was emphatic Tuesday in insisting there was no change to the U.S. military mission. White House press secretary Jay Carney said in an e-mail earlier Tuesday that the military mission was clearly focused on protecting civilians. He also noted Obama's remark Monday that Gadhafi is no longer fit to lead.

Members of both political parties, including Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), have criticized the president for not clearly stating the aims of the U.S.'s military strikes in Libya and for not articulating those goals to Congress.

The U.N. has approved measures to protect civilians in Libya, and the U.S. has said the mission of its military is to do so. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said it is important for the militaries involved in air strikes in Libya to stay within the boundaries of the U.N. resolution.

At the same time, a strike on Gadhafi’s compound and statements from officials in other nations involved in the operation, have raised questions over the goals of the mission.

From the onset of the strikes against Libya, senior administration officials have said the goal is to create an atmosphere in which Libyan rebels would be able to oust Gadhafi from power.

Lawmakers have demanded that Obama better communicate his aims both with Congress and the public. Some members have even requested that a special session of Congress, which is currently in recess, be held to formally consider the military operation.

To address members' concern and fulfill his obligation under the War Powers act, Obama penned a formal letter to Boehner on Monday explaining those goals.

But Obama has struggled to reconcile the stated U.S. policy of wanting Gadhafi out of power with the U.N. mission of protecting the Libyan people.

To bad no one cares.

Constitutional watchdog. Especially with a Dem in the White House. Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett, a supporter of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, disagrees with Operation Odyssey Dawn (sounds like a stripper) and is describing POTUS's decision to deploy force again Libya without first seeking congressional authorization “an affront to the Constitution.” Interesting.

Dr. Bartlett, a Western Maryland Republican, chairs the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces. In a statement Monday, he said “The United States does not have a King's army.” Here is his statement.

Washington, Mar 21 - Congressman Roscoe Bartlett released the following statement today concerning the situation in Libya. Congressman Bartlett represents Maryland’s Sixth District and he is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the House Armed Services Committee.

“The United States does not have a King's army. President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution. President Obama's administration has repeated the mistakes of the Clinton administration concerning bombing in Kosovo and the George W. Bush administration concerning invading Iraq by failing to request and obtain from the U.S. Congress unambiguous prior authorization to use military force against a country that has not attacked U.S. territory, the U.S. military or U.S. citizens. This is particularly ironic considering then-Senator Obama campaigned for the Democratic nomination based upon his opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

“Moammar Qadhafi is a tyrant despised throughout the Middle East and North Africa. His brutal and merciless attacks against his own citizens are horrific. It is self-evident that the tragic situation in Libya is not an emergency since the Obama administration sought and obtained support from both the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council to authorize military force against Qadhafi. The Obama administration also had time to organize a 22-nation coalition to implement a no-fly zone with military attacks led by U.S. Armed Forces against Qadhafi’s forces. Nonetheless, the Obama administration failed to seek approval from the American people and their elected legislators in the Congress. Failing to obtain authorization from the U.S. Congress means that President Obama has taken sole responsibility for the outcome of using U.S. military forces against Qadhafi onto his shoulders and his administration."

Does anybody care? No, Ringo. Nobody cares.There is nothing more "American" than rooting for any military endeavor against anyone or any country or any people. You'd think that after Vietnam we'd be rather chary about engaging in ill-defined, nebulous military actions couched and phrased conditionally and in absolute contravention and violation of the Constitution.

You'd think.

This is an excerpt from an article contained in The Australian. It puts into perspective the dangers Japan now faces from radiation being emitted from the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear reactors and introduces many to a most (now) dreaded scientific unit, the millisievert (mSv). A sievert (Sv) is defined as follows.

a unit of ionizing radiation absorbed dose equivalent in the International System of Units, obtained as a product of the absorbed dose measure in grays and a dimensionless factor, stipulated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and indicating the biological effectiveness of the radiation.

Some reports have stated that radiation levels at the reactors have reached 400 millisieverts an hour - enough for experts to urge a rapid rotation of emergency crews, to limit their exposure to its DNA-destroying energy.

Tilman Ruff, a public health physician at the University of Melbourne's Nossal Institute for Global Health, said this intensity of radiation was far above the maximum safe level for the general public, of just 1 millisievert per annum, and much higher even than the limit for workers in occupational settings, of 20 millisieverts annually.

At these levels, the 50 workers still on site ran the real risk of developing acute radiation sickness if not given proper protection, said Associate Professor Ruff, while the general population faced separate but no less real risks from chronic exposure to any lower-level contaminants released into the environment.

Symptoms of acute radiation poisoning start at doses above half to one sievert (500 to 1000 millisieverts), with symptoms such as nausea, headache and fatigue.

Doses of between 2 and 4 sieverts can cause bleeding, nausea and ulceration of the intestinal tract, and can cause a horrible death, either within a few days of exposure, or after a more lingering illness such as anaemia, infection and blood loss take their toll.

Higher doses can damage the brain and central nervous system directly, causing coma and death within days or hours.

However, the bigger potential threat facing Japan lies in a repeat of the Chernobyl accident, in which radioactive contamination was blown over the surrounding area and into the atmosphere.

While this has not yet occurred in Japan, the health effects in this situation would be caused by a more insidious and chronic exposure to radiation of a different type.

Intense bursts of radiation that cause rapidly fatal cases of acute poisoning are often caused by gamma rays, a type of ionising radiation that, like X-rays, damages cells and DNA by stripping atoms of some of their charged particles.

However, radioactive isotopes often emitted in nuclear accidents in many cases emit a different type of radiation called alpha particles.

Outside the body, these are not usually a problem, because they do not travel long distances and cannot penetrate the skin or even a sheet of paper.

But swallowed or inhaled, they can do great damage.

"The lethal dose for a human can be no more, in energy terms, than the heat in a cup of coffee," Professor Ruff said. "It's not that it's a particularly large amount of energy - it's just packaged in such a way that's particularly damaging to the large molecules that are key to how we work."

The isotope iodine-131 - which accounts for about 3 per cent of the products of uranium fission - is easily absorbed by the thyroid gland, which produces hormones essential for cell metabolism. Once there, there is little to protect surrounding DNA from the particle bombardment that alpha radiation involves.

While doctors could give people non-radioactive iodine as a preventative measure to saturate the thyroid and prevent it taking up any radioactive molecules, this had to be taken within 36 hours of exposure.

Professor Ruff said reactors contained a "complex soup" of radioactive isotopes, and caesium-137 was a particular threat as it behaved in chemical terms like potassium and was readily taken up by cells throughout the body.

Likewise, strontium-90 behaved like calcium, leading to its accumulation in bones and teeth.

Iodine-131 has a half-life of just eight days, which means that after this time half the substance has decayed, in this case into the inert gas xenon. But many other radioactive compounds persist for much longer.

Strontium-90 and caesium-137 both have half lives of about 30 years, while plutonium-239 - another product of the Japanese reactors, which Professor Ruff describes as "probably the most hazardous substance in existence" - has a half-life of 24,200 years.

No treatments exist that can reverse the damage involved in radiation poisoning, although doctors can try to treat symptoms, for instance by giving antibiotics to prop up a failing immune system.

Professor Ruff said any large radiation leak could have serious consequences over a wide area, as the Chernobyl blast had resulted in radiation hotspots in areas as far-flung as northern Sweden, southern Greece and other parts of Europe.

It was unlikely to affect Australia, as the separation of climate systems in the northern and southern hemispheres would make it difficult for airborne contamination to cross the equator.

But for those in Japan, increases in cancer rates could be expected to follow a significant radiation leak - as had already been seen in the 23 years since the Ukraine accident. "At Chernobyl, 42 workers died from acute radiation sickness, all within the first month," Professor Ruff said.

"But it's estimated that somewhere between 10,000 and 60,000 people in total will die from fall-out, and from cancer, over a period of decades."

Rates of thyroid cancer around Chernobyl rose within five years of the accident, Professor Ruff said, while rates of childhood leukemia rose within 10 years.

"Then the various solid tumours - lung, stomach, ovary, breast, colon - (have started to rise after) 10 years and onwards," he said.

"The incidence of cancer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors is still going up.

"You can't put a name on it and say, 'That cancer is due to that radiation exposure', because cancer caused by radiation doesn't look any different to cancer caused by smoking, or anything else. But overall, it could be a very significant increase in rates."

Other experts yesterday sought to tone down the health concerns.

Peter Burns, former chief executive of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, said radiation releases so far in Japan were "I suspect . . . a million times, probably several million times, less" than in Chernobyl, where basic prevention measures would have greatly lessened the health impacts.

"The problem at Chernobyl (was that) people still drank the milk and ate the vegetables," he said.

You don't have to know the first thing about seismology or nuclear physics to know that what your about to see is catastrophic.

As a result of the fires and damage to the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex, nuclear experts have concerns that localized winds are blowing the radiation towards Tokyo prompting evacuation.

But what many fear is that the longer term trajectory of upper atmosphere prevailing winds will still send any potential radiation cloud towards the U.S. west coast. [Global Jet Stream Map for March 13-21]

And one more thing. Remember, to take cum grano salis anything your government tells you. When the BP disaster was breaking, clarity and transparency were shelved. And when those brave 9/11 first responders were told that all was safe . . . well, you know what happened.

This is Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal. Today he made it clear that his country rejects any interference in its domestic affairs and would "cut off" any accusing finger. With the Saudis, folks who are most creative when it comes to dispensing judgment via a variety of amputation and beheading methods that I'd rather not detail now, you're never sure if this is just an idiomatic expression or an actual plan to lop off digits.

The Saudi government has beefed up security in preparation for the March 11 ”Friday of Rage” called for by an opposition group on Facebook.Protests and public display of dissent are outlawed in Saudi Arabia. The Financial Times reported that "The Interior Ministry issued a statement . . . reiterating the ban, adding that protests are against Islamic sharia. The ban was backed by statements by the clergy and the shura council, an appointed consultative assembly."

Shi'ite protesters have taken to the streets in recent days demanding inter alia more freedom and democracy (translation: democracy that comports with our sense of democracy), mirroring that seen across the Middle East and North Africa. Remember Saudi Arabia has a Sunni majority. Interesting.

Faisal is the nephew of King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz and he said that Saudi Arabia "rejects any foreign interference in its internal affairs." He warned that protests would not bring reform and urged dialogue with the demonstrators. [Source reference]

Prince Faisal said, "The reform... does not come via protests and [the clerics] have forbidden protests since they violate the Koran and the way of the Prophet," He said change would come from within. Translation: We will crush anyone who dares challenge us. And he means business.

"Change will come through the citizens of this kingdom and not through foreign fingers, we don't need them," he said during a news conference. "We will cut any finger that crosses into the kingdom." There he goes with that fingers being cut reference.

And this is my favorite. Amnesty International has called on the world's largest oil exporter to drop the restriction of peaceful protests, after a brutal crackdown recently on a demonstration in a Shiite region. Ha! Folks, this is the last guy you want to mess with.

I don't mean to sound as though I'm suggesting that protesters back down, but I just want folks to realize that while we think nothing about protesting (whenever we fight torpor and actually protest), Saudi officials have absolutely no compunction about severely crushing anyone or any group who would dare challenge their authority.

Keep an eye on this one.

In my March 4th commentary, I cited three stories that I reference infra as promised. You can't make this up.

Primate Pirates in NOLA

Butts waives hearing in Boob murder case

A happy ending to farmer's anus woes

Zeus bless the Internet.