Robert Gibbs On U.S. Killing 16 Yr Old American 2-Weeks After Killing His Father: ‘Have A More Responsible Father’ (video)
In April 2010, Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen and an alleged leader of al-Qaeda operating out of Yemen — was placed on President Obama’s ‘Kill List’ for assassination. On September 30, 2011, an American drone targeted and killed him.
Two weeks later and over 200 miles away from where Awlaki was killed, his 16 year old son, Abdulrahman — an American citizen and native of Denver, CO — was targeted and murdered by an American drone.
The Obama Administration, to date, has refused to explain why they killed this young American boy. They have never claimed that he was in anyway affiliated with al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. In fact the boy had not even seen his father in over two years, since his father went into hiding.
A couple of reporters from WeAreChange.org approached Former White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, and asked him several questions regarding the President’s flip-flop on NDAA, his ‘Kill List’, and how he justified extra-judicially killing a 16 year old American citizen. Here is the portion of the transcript that pertains to al-Awlaki’s son’s assassination, by journalist Sierra Adamson:
Adamson: Do you think the killing of al-Awlaki’s 16 year old son, an American citizen, was justifiable?
Gibbs: I…I…I…I … I’m not going to get into al-Awlaki’s son. I know that Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship—
Adamson: His son was still an American citizen.
Gibbs: —did great harm to people in this country, and was a regional al-Qaeda commander, hoping to inflict harm and destruction on people that share his religion and others in this country.
Adamson: That’s an American citizen that’s been targeted without due process of law, without trial, and he’s under age. He’s a minor.
Gibbs: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they’re truly concerned about the well-being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.
Wow! So, even though you cannot choose your parents, Gibbs warns that you may be assassinated for being the offspring of the ‘wrong ones’.
Debate: Kurt Eichenwald v Ari Fleischer On Bush Admin’s Refusal To Heed CIA Warnings Of 9-11 Attacks
Former NY Times reporter and bestselling author Kurt Eichenwald wrote a scathing NY Times Op-Ed Tuesday in which he revealed how the Bush Administration refused to heed MANY explicit (previously unknown) warnings of the impending 9-11 attacks.
His information is based upon Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs) he obtained, which the Bush Admin had refused to release to the 9-11 Commission, and interviews he conducted with intelligence and Bush Admin officials for his new book, 500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars.
Eichenwald stated that the neocons at the Pentagon contested the C.I.A. warning briefs, assuring “the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled,” and that “Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.”
The C.I.A. responded with an “analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.” The White House’s refusal to take action lead some officials at the C.I.A. counterterrorism group to contemplate requesting for transfers “so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”
The Op-Ed created a firestorm in the inner beltway, and the neocon response to Eichenwald was both swift and predictable.
Immediately after the Op-Ed’s release, former Bush WH Press Secretary Ari Fleischer Tweeted the following, in an attempt to marginalize Eichenwald as some loony conspiracy theorist:
Disgusting op-ed in NYT by a truther implying Bush knew of 9-11/let it happen. NYT decries lack of civility, then adds to it.
— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) September 11, 2012
How can the NYT ridicule birthers then make their op-ed page home to a truther??
— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) September 11, 2012
CNN’s Anderson Cooper invited Eichenwald and Fleischer onto his show tonight to debate the facts underlying Eichenwald’s reporting, but Fleischer predictably resorts to ad hominem attacks, and demands Democrats share the blame for the Bush Admin’s gross negligence:
What The Osama Bin Laden Video Reveals As Impetus For Terrorism: Israel
Fox & Friends recently spoke with former Head of CIA’s Bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer, about the Bin Laden videos obtained during the Navy Seal raid at the al-Qaeda leader’s compound.
One of the program’s hosts, after describing how Bin Laden seemed obsessed with his own self image, asked Scheuer if this is why the Obama Administration would release video tapes with no audio — merely to expose Bin Laden’s vanity:
My Question is, Clay mentioned ‘No audio on these tapes’, why did the government release them? You can’t glean a whole lot from them, there’s no audio, no real information. Is it to kind of demystify what we all know, and what people think of Bin Laden?
What the host was not anticipating was that Scheuer would use this question as an opportunity to debunk the official neocon/Fox News Channel “they hate us for our freedom” narrative:
No. No, the government has lied to the American people since 9/11. What they don’t want you to hear again is that Osama Bin Laden doesn’t care — and his organization and his allies do not care — about liberty in America, democracy in America, gender equality in America, or elections.
What Bin Laden was saying on the tape that they’re talking about almost certainly was, “We don’t care how you think or how you live. We want you out of our world, and we will attack you until you stop doing that.”
And of course Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, and Mr. Obama have consistently told America this is about how we live and how we think, rather than what we do.
And as you might expect, the Fox News host promptly changed the subject, probably kicking himself for having ever asked the question.
HERE’S THE FULL INTERVIEW:
Well, Haaretz has now reported what Bin Laden did actually say in his final video (filmed just before his death). Addressed to President Obama, the video was focused entirely on the plight of the Palestinians, and in particular US support of Israel.
Bin Laden was quoted as saying:
“America will not be able to dream of security until we live in security in Palestine. It is unfair that you live in peace while our brothers in Gaza live in insecurity.”
“Accordingly, and with the will of God, our attacks will continue against you as long as your support for Israel continues,” the al-Qaida chief said in the audio recording.
“So the message we wanted to convey through the plane of our hero, the fighter Umar Farouk, may God be with him, confirms a previous message which had been sent to you by our heroes of September 11,” bin Laden reportedly said in the minute-long recording.
Bin Laden’s statement that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict remains an impetus for terrorism, is consistent with what has already been stated by both former US President Bill Clinton and US Middle East envoy George J. Mitchell; as well as by nearly every cabinet member of the Obama Administration, who have asserted repeatedly that peace between Israel and the Palestinians is “vital to US national security interests”.
If President Obama were really serious about pressuring Israel to end the illegal settlements and embrace peace wouldn’t this new revelation be something he would add to his rhetorical arsenal in pressing the US Congress to stop undermining his Middle East peace efforts?
Wouldn’t he be using this revelation to bring the American public on board for tougher pressure on Israel? Since the 9/11 attacks, wars have been waged, trillions of dollars spent, tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives lost — all to allegedly “protect Americans from terrorism”. And here is Bin Laden (mastermind of 9/11) pointing directly at Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as an underlying cause for his terrorist attacks.
Unfortunately, President Obama does not want this topic to be part of the public discourse in the run up to his 2012 reelection campaign. Why? Because it would complicate his efforts at winning over America’s deep-pocketed pro-Israel political donors. Imagine Candidate Obama reaffirming his ‘sacrosanct’ commitment to Israel if it were widely known that this foreign country’s intransigence posed a direct threat to our national security. He’d be accused of treason.
In fact, Obama has been trying to repair frayed ties with pro-Israel groups and Israeli officials, due to the little pressure he actually did put on Netanyahu during the last two years. By recently promoting Dennis Ross — the ‘living embodiment‘ of the Israel Lobby — to Chief White House Middle East strategist the President sent a clear message to these groups that he has transitioned away from pursuing Middle East peace to accepting the status-quo.
Here is one possibility: Obama’s new strategy for peace in the Middle East may be — get this — to just do nothing.
The UN General Assembly (the same entity which recognized Israel as a state in 1948) is gearing up to declare Palestine a state along the 1967 borders this September, and the United States holds no veto power to stop it. Any future Israeli settlement expansion, or even a resistance in abandoning the present illegal settlements, would no longer be met with “unhelpful” comments from the US State Dept, but instead with harsh sanctions by the international community.
Let’s face it, the Israel Lobby (backed by full unflinching support of the United States Congress) will punish the President politically and contest all efforts to press Israel to choose peace over apartheid. So why should he continue to bother? It would make sense for him to just sit back and watch the UN General Assembly mandate the 1967 borders as the official dividing line between Israel and Palestine.
Essentially by doing nothing, the President will pay no political price (he’s powerless to stop it), he will assure peace in the Middle East under his Presidency, thereby removing a major impetus for world terrorism — crucial to the national security interests of the United States. And equally as important, the Palestinians will finally become free — free from the oppression, the violence, the cleansing, and bigotry they’ve endured over the last sixty years.
The President may have finally found a way to get his cake and eat it too.
MSNBC: Did Intelligence Agents With Alternative Agenda Withhold Info So Christmas Bomber Could Strike?
In one of the more disturbing reports I’ve seen in some time (and there’s been a hell of a lot lately), Richard Wolffe told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann last night that the White House is investigating the attempted Christmas bombing of Flight 253 to answer this question: “The question here is why didn’t the centralized system […]
What Makes America Safer: Fiscal Stability, Or Chasing 100 Terrorists Around Afghanistan?
In Obama’s Afghanistan speech at West Point, he announced he would be escalating our troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000-35,000 to ensure those who attacked us on 9-11 are resoundingly defeated. ABC News notes that Obama conveniently left out a very significant fact, when making his case: A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the […]
Obama Stops at Cliff, Peeks Over Edge, and Decides to Shift Afghan Strategy
Finally, some semblance of rationale is beginning to emerge within U.S. foreign policy! The New York Times is reporting that: President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to […]