by Victor Davis Hanson<\/p>\n
PJ Media<\/em><\/p>\n Like Nothing Before<\/strong><\/p>\n In the Watergate scandal, no one died, at least that we know of. Richard Nixon tried systematically to subvert institutions. Yet most of his unconstitutional efforts were domestic in nature \u2014 and\u00a0an adversarial press<\/a>\u00a0[1] soon went to war against his abuses and won, as Congress held impeachment hearings.<\/p>\n As far as national security went, Nixon\u2019s crimes were in part culpable for destroying the political consensus that he had won in 1972, at a critical time when the Vietnam War to save the south was all but over, and had been acknowledged as such at the Paris Peace Talks. But Watergate and the destruction of Nixon\u2019s foreign policy spurred congressional cutbacks of aid to South Vietnam and eroded all support for the administration\u2019s promised efforts to ensure that North Vietnam kept to its treaty obligations.<\/p>\n Iran-Contra was as serious because there was a veritable war inside the Reagan administration over helping insurgents with covert cash that had in part been obtained by, despite denials, selling arms to enemy Iran to free hostages \u2014 all against US laws and therefore off the radar. The Reagan administration was left looking weak, hypocritical, incompetent, and amoral \u2014 and never quite recovered. Yet even here the media soon covered the story in detail, and their disclosures led to several resignations and full congressional hearings.<\/p>\n Quite Different<\/strong><\/p>\n What I call \u201cSecuritygate\u201d \u2014 the release of the most intricate details about the cyber war against Iran, the revelations about a Yemeni double-agent, disclosures about covert operations in and against Pakistan, intimate details about the Osama bin Laden raid and the trove of information taken from his compound, and the Predator drone assassination list and the president\u2019s methodology in selecting targets \u2014 is far more serious than either prior scandal. David Sanger and others claim that all this was sort of in the public domain anyway; well, \u201csort of\u201d covers a lot of ground. We sort of knew about the cyber war against Iran, but not to the detail that Sanger provides and not through the direct agency of the Obama administration itself.<\/p>\n Here is the crux of the scandal: Obama is formulating a new policy of avoiding overt unpopular engagements, while waging an unprecedented covert war across the world. He\u2019s afraid that the American people do not fully appreciate these once-secret efforts and might in 2012 look only at his mishaps in Afghanistan or his public confusion over Islamic terror. Ergo, feed information to a Sanger or Ignatius so that they can skillfully inform us, albeit with a bit of dramatic \u201cshock\u201d and \u201csurprise,\u201d just how tough, brutal, and deadly Barack Obama really is.<\/p>\n Yet these disclosures will endanger our national security, especially in the case of a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. They will probably get people killed or tortured, and they will weaken America\u2019s ability for years to work covertly with allies. Our state-to-state relations will be altered, and perhaps even the techniques and technology of our cyber and special operations wars dispersed into the wrong hands. There is nothing in the recent \u201cexclusive\u201d writings of David Sanger or David Ignatius that was necessary for the American people to know at this stage, unless one thinks that we had a right to the full story of the Doolittle Raid in 1942, or that Americans by July 1944 needed an insider account of the date and planning of D-Day, or that we should have been apprised about what was really going on in New Mexico in 1944.<\/p>\n Here is why Securitygate is a national outrage and goes to the heart of a free and civil society.<\/p>\n National Security<\/strong><\/p>\n Iran probably knew of US covert involvement against its nuclear facilities, but now it knows that the entire world also knows. There is no more plausible deniability on our part. The information about the nature of the cyber war is so detailed, the partnership with the Israelis rendered so complex, and the disclosures about technology and technique so explicit, that the Iranians will not only better defend themselves, but use these details to encourage and support even more terror against the United States. How ironic that Obama once called Guantanamo al Qaeda\u2019s \u201cchief recruiting tool\u201d only to keep it open, and instead give them a real recruiting tool in the disclosure of the inner workings of the war on terror.<\/p>\n Pakistan is a veritable enemy and Iran an explicit one. But now both will recite endlessly David Sanger\u2019s catalog of our efforts to subvert them, and claim any new anti-American efforts on their part were simply justified tit-for-tat. Why would the Gulf states help us, when they come off as brutal supporters of the old doomed dictatorships? Europe and our allies no doubt knew all about predators and the cyber war, but their publics did not. Expect even more anti-Americanism, as our enemies decry targeted assassinations and efforts at subverting governments.<\/p>\n George W. Bush turned off the world by waterboarding three known and confessed terrorists \u2014 with help from the American Left who publicized that fact hourly for eight years. Barack Obama, we now read, has not only personally selected several hundred suspected terrorists for airborne execution, but alternates between reading their terrorist biographies and theology as he picks who lives and who dies. I am sure Catholic theologians appreciate the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine bulked up the American president\u2019s fortitude when he chose to press the kill button over Waziristan. Crude presidents watch\u00a0Patton<\/em>\u00a0or wear flight suits under \u201cMission Accomplished\u201d banners; sophisticated metrosexual wartime Presidents read theology. I am surprised only that we did not hear from leaks that Obama had read these didactic texts in the original Latin.<\/p>\n Is the world to be outraged that Russia sends war material to Syria or Iran arms to Hezbollah \u2014 when it matter-of-factly now reads that almost all communications inside Pakistan are intercepted? Do we need to know that the US warped medical vaccination programs to gain information about bin Laden \u2014 right out of a scene from the film\u00a0Man on Fire<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[2]? I bet the Gates Foundation and other American philanthropic organizations will appreciate the doubt that will now be cast on their own vaccination efforts. In the world war of ideas, we accuse Iran of wanting to wipe out Israel and they now will accuse us of resorting even to manipulating vaccination programs for the sick and poor for our own national security. Do we really need to know \u2014 or rather does the world need to know \u2014 that we sabotaged video cameras in Pakistan? Wait \u2014 I err in the use of the past tense: we are still sabotaging video and photographic equipment in Pakistan.<\/p>\n We live in dangerous times, with a war in Afghanistan, a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran, a duplicitous nuclear Pakistan, an estranged nuclear ally Israel, an Arab Spring gone haywire, a failed reset with Russia, and almost all of the above conniving over Syria. The work of National Security Advisor Tom Donilon,\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0reporter David Sanger, and all their assorted subordinate reporters and Obama administration officials may well help to set off a conflagration unlike any in our time.<\/p>\n The Timing and Theme<\/strong><\/p>\n Why are we suddenly learning in spring of 2012 of all sorts of classified information about the administration\u2019s war on terror? Why not in 2009? Why is all the disclosed information in the press predictably designed to offer another side of Barack Obama in an election year? The president turns out not to be the familiar senator or presidential candidate Obama, who once demanded that Guantanamo be shut down, who mocked renditions and tribunals, who opposed preventative detentions, who wanted to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court, and whose team characterized the Major Hasan murders as workplace violence and the Mutallab plot as \u201callegedly\u201d or came up with the laughable euphemisms \u201coverseas contingency operations\u201d and \u201cman-caused disasters.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, all the prior public knowledge of the Obama administration\u2019s conduct of the war on terror had helped contribute to real public worries about its national security reliability. In contrast, all the recent disclosures paint a much different picture of the real \u201cObama Doctrine\u201d \u2014 a Nobel Peace Prize laureate reading his St. Thomas Aquinas as he struggles with blowing up bad guys from the air, takes out bin Laden, unleashes a cyber war against Iran, or sends his agents into Yemen. A Hollywood scriptwriter could have done Obama the \u201cparadox\u201d no better: ruthlessly sensitive, decisively reflective, and tragically underappreciated.<\/p>\n The decision to disclose a multifaceted covert war on terror and ensure the continuance of the administration Barack Obama is supposedly far more important to our long-term national security than is any short-term damage that follows these disclosures.<\/p>\n The Role of the Press<\/strong><\/p>\n We all know how the deplorable practice of \u201cleaking\u201d works. But in truth, these were not quite leaks: information was not \u201cleaked\u201d by rogue insiders or hostile outsiders, but rather given freely to the press by administration officials.<\/p>\n That fact alone makes Securitygate different from any other past scandal over publicized classified documents or insider accounts of covert operations \u2014 or even Bob Woodward\u2019s mythography and insider psychodramas, where he only imagines what presidents and secretary of states are \u201creally\u201d thinking silently to themselves.<\/p>\n Usually liberal reporters nurture and stroke unnamed sources and would-be whistle-blowers who claim worry about an administration\u2019s stealthy and dangerous national security efforts. Sometimes they divide and conquer \u2014 warning reluctant sources that when the proverbial stuff hits the fan, their own silent narratives will be drowned out by the connivers who squawked. Message? If you can\u2019t beat them, then beat them to the punch.<\/p>\n When the leaked story goes public, the administration in question goes bananas; after all, its most private protocols and operations are rendered worthless as they enter the public domain. Our\u00a0Woodstein-like reporters<\/a>\u00a0[3] in question predictably fancy themselves Edward R. Murrows, as if speaking truth to power. They earn praise from the New York-Washington, DC, corridor, with all the accruing\u00a0beneficia<\/em>of strong book sales, career promotions, TV appearances, or often prizes for their \u201ccourage.\u201d The leaker, if found out, often likewise is canonized, in Daniel Ellsberg fashion, as he usually beats the rap.<\/p>\n None of that was true of the released information about the bin Laden mission, subversion in Pakistan, the Yemeni double agent, the Predator drone protocols, and the cyber war against Iraq, or our covert war in Africa. The press were lapdogs, not bull terriers. The leakers were not misguided whistle-blowers, but careerist insiders. We don\u2019t quite have an investigative press these days, but rather a Ministry of Truth put in charge of Barack Obama\u2019s public relations: when the worldwide Left worries that Obama is too militaristic, we heard of deep engagement with Catholic theologians and a desire to go after former CIA agents, or more plans to close Guantanamo; when the Right is up in arms that Obama is not pursuing Islamic terrorists, then the drone tally, cyber war, and more details about Osama bin Laden suddenly are all over the news.<\/p>\n Complicity not skepticism is the theme of the work of a Sanger or Ignatius and their kindred reporters. Their aim is that we should be \u201csurprised\u201d about just how muscular is the Obama version of the war on terror \u2014 an appreciation that is especially timely in mid-2012, rather than, say, 2009 or 2010.<\/p>\n Doubt all that? The subtitle of David Sanger\u2019s book \u2014\u00a0Surprising Use of American Power<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[4] \u2014 says it all, does it not? \u201cSurprising\u201d is a rather mild adjective that one might not usually expect from a\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0\u201cinvestigative\u201d reporter hell-bent on rushing into print leaked material about controversial, legally questionable, and covert US operations. \u201cSurprising\u201d is the sort of loaded adjective that reminds us of the press\u2019s other favored word \u2014\u00a0\u201cunexpectedly\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[5] \u2014 when citing the latest dismal economic news.<\/p>\n Cui Bono<\/em>?<\/strong><\/p>\n But outrage was not the intent of Sanger, nor of any of the other \u201creporters\u201d who have been given exclusive access to either Obama administration insiders or once sort of, now kind of, classified materials. When one reads David Ignatius on the covert bin Laden raid, here are the sort of inanities that pop out: \u201cThis desire to reattach al Qaeda to the Muslim mainstream is evident in the documents I reviewed that were\u00a0taken from bin Laden\u2019s compound<\/a>\u00a0[6] the night he was killed. \u2026 As Wednesday\u2019s\u00a0anniversary of bin Laden\u2019s death<\/a>\u00a0[7] approaches, I have been going back over my notes of these messages. I found some unpublished passages that show how bin Laden\u2019s legacy is an ironic mix.\u201d Or \u201cThe scheme is described in one of the documents\u00a0taken from bin Laden\u2019s compound<\/a>\u00a0[8] by US forces on May 2, the night he was killed. I was given an exclusive look at some of these remarkable documents by a senior administration official. They have been declassified and will be available soon to the public in their original Arabic texts and translations.\u201d<\/p>\n How does one seriously claim an \u201cexclusive look\u201d at \u201cremarkable documents\u201d that have been \u201cdeclassified\u201d and \u201cwill be available soon.\u201d (Note the tense gymnastics.) Either a document is in the public domain for all, or it is not. One does not have an \u201cexclusive\u201d look at otherwise common knowledge. This is incoherent: \u201cA senior administration official\u201d calls up a senior\u00a0Washington Post<\/em>\u00a0reporter to provide him with an \u201cexclusive\u201d look at unclassified documents in the public domain. Why would a \u201csenior\u201d official have to remain unnamed when all he was doing was passing along unclassified information?<\/p>\n What Next?<\/strong><\/p>\n What should we expect next from the administration rather pleased at these disclosures? More of \u201chow dare you!\u201d denials from Barack Obama who is \u201cshocked\u201d that we might possibly conclude that he runs the defense of the United States like a poorly managed Tony Rezko land deal.<\/p>\n Expect the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Washington Post<\/em>\u00a0stable to likewise be aghast at any hint they were massaged, and in vain to point to all sorts of nuanced little qualifiers in their stories that we missed, but that really do prove their own independence and \u201cworry,\u201d \u201cskepticism,\u201d and \u201cconcern\u201d over some of the shocking things they wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cClassified\u201d is now a postmodern idea, as we see from Ignatius. I think the damage-control procedure will go like this: although we, the public, could not read what theNew York Times<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Washington Post<\/em>\u00a0people read, these \u201cclassified\u201d sources were still not really classified. You see, the president decides from moment to moment what is legally classified, what not. When given to a reporter to ensure the public knows that an Achilles rather than a Paris is our commander in chief, the documents in a nanosecond became declassified. In other words, once these leaks go into print, then immediately\u00a0post facto<\/em>\u00a0all such information was declassified all along: stupid us, we just never asked to read it or talk with these folks who had.<\/p>\n If \u2014 a big if \u2014 and when either Congress or the media goes after the damage that was done to US interests, expect that almost every subpoenaed source imaginable is now \u201cclassified\u201d \u2014 as in \u201cHow dare you ask for classified information that might endanger the national security just to find out how and why we released \u2018declassified\u2019 information that did no harm at all.\u201d<\/p>\n Reader, forget politics. Just digest the nature, theme, the timing, and the damage of these disclosures. Do that and most of you will conclude they are offenses to the security of the United States \u2014 or, in the words of Barack Obama\u00a0on another matter<\/a>[9], \u201cunpatriotic.\u201d<\/p>\n URLs in this post: \u00a92012 Victor Davis Hanson<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by Victor Davis Hanson PJ Media Like Nothing Before In the Watergate scandal, no one died, at least that we know of. Richard Nixon tried systematically to subvert institutions. Yet most of his unconstitutional efforts were domestic in nature \u2014 and\u00a0an adversarial press\u00a0[1] soon went to war against his abuses and won, as Congress held […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[59,102],"tags":[161,233,12,1055,1039,286,1044,1065,169,287,162,1016,284],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p466Sb-aO","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":11016,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/rethinking-watergate\/","url_meta":{"origin":670,"position":0},"title":"Rethinking Watergate","author":"victorhanson","date":"February 22, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Victor Davis Hanson \/\/ Hoover Institution The Watergate break-in is now 45 years old. The scandal is as distant from our own time as it was once from 1928. The median age of Americans is about 38 years old. Half of all Americans were likely born after the break-in. But\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Donald Trump"","block_context":{"text":"Donald Trump","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/donald-trump\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6311,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/obamas-watergates\/","url_meta":{"origin":670,"position":1},"title":"Obama’s Watergates","author":"victorhanson","date":"August 6, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Denial, evasion, \"Let me be perfectly clear\"--is this 2013 or 1973? by Victor Davis Hanson \/\/\u00a0National Review Online The truth about Benghazi, the Associated Press\/James Rosen monitoring, the\u00a0IRS\u00a0corruption, the NSA octopus, and Fast and Furious is still not exactly known. Almost a year after the attacks on our Benghazi facilities,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Political Culture"","block_context":{"text":"Political Culture","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/american-culture\/political-culture\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/79713948_47244e8c2a.jpg?fit=400%2C273&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":10948,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/fisa-gate-is-scarier-than-watergate\/","url_meta":{"origin":670,"position":2},"title":"FISA-Gate is Scarier than Watergate","author":"victorhanson","date":"February 8, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Victor Davis Hanson \/\/ National Review The Watergate scandal of 1972\u201374 was uncovered largely because of outraged Democratic politicians and a bulldog media. They both claimed that they had saved American democracy from the Nixon administration\u2019s attempt to warp the CIA and FBI to cover up an otherwise minor, though\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "FISA"","block_context":{"text":"FISA","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/fisa\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":9576,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/has-clinton-topped-nixon\/","url_meta":{"origin":670,"position":3},"title":"Has Clinton topped Nixon?","author":"Megan Ring","date":"November 3, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"By Victor Davis Hanson\/\/ Town Hall | Another day, another Hillary Clinton bombshell disclosure. This time the scandal comes from disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop computer, bringing more suggestions of Clinton's sloppy attitude about U.S. intelligence law. Meanwhile, seemingly every day WikiLeaks produces more evidence of the Clinton Foundation\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Nixon"","block_context":{"text":"Nixon","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/nixon\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":680,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/securitygate-is-not-going-away\/","url_meta":{"origin":670,"position":4},"title":"Securitygate Is Not Going Away","author":"victorhanson","date":"June 28, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson NRO's\u00a0The Corner They Shall Not Pass Securitygate has Nixonian trademarks all over it and is far more injurious to the republic than all the previous Obama administration-era scandals combined. Attorney General Holder simply cannot select an attorney to investigate key players in the administration who was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Terrorism"","block_context":{"text":"Terrorism","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/war-on-terror\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5926,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/is-benghazi-becoming-a-watergate-or-iran-contra-or-both\/","url_meta":{"origin":670,"position":5},"title":"Is Benghazi Becoming a Watergate, or Iran-Contra, or Both?","author":"victorhanson","date":"May 6, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson NRO's\u00a0The Corner Benghazi cannot be dismissed with \u201clong ago\u201d or \u201cwhat difference does it make\u201d exasperation, given it may have the cover-up and civil-liberties aspects of Watergate and the weapon-transfers and foreign-policy implications of Iran-Contra. 1. Can a State Department be credible that on its own\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Benghazi"","block_context":{"text":"Benghazi","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/obama-administration\/benghazi\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/670"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=670"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/670\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":672,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/670\/revisions\/672"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=670"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=670"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=670"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\n[1] an adversarial press:\u00a0http:\/\/mediamythalert.wordpress.com\/2012\/06\/17\/the-media-myths-of-watergate-part-one\/<\/a>
\n[2] Man on Fire:http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/product\/B000XSWVFQ\/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=pajamasmedia-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000XSWVFQ<\/a>
\n[3] Woodstein-like reporters:\u00a0http:\/\/www.nationalreview.com\/articles\/302652\/war-nixon-conrad-black<\/a>
\n[4] Surprising Use of American Power:http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/product\/0307718026\/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=pjmedia-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0307718026<\/a>
\n[5] \u201cunexpectedly\u201d:\u00a0http:\/\/cdn.pjmedia.com\/eddriscoll\/2011\/07\/08\/unexpectedly\/<\/a>
\n[6] taken from bin Laden\u2019s compound:http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/opinions\/the-bin-laden-plot-to-kill-president-obama\/2012\/03\/16\/gIQAwN5RGS_story.html<\/a>
\n[7] anniversary of bin Laden\u2019s death:http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/politics\/intelligence-officials-see-no-credible-terror-threat-to-mark-anniversary-of-bin-ladens-death\/2012\/04\/26\/gIQAb9iAjT_story.html<\/a>
\n[8] taken from bin Laden\u2019s compound:http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/world\/national-security\/al-qaeda-data-yields-details-of-planned-plots\/2011\/05\/05\/AFFQ3L2F_story.html<\/a>
\n[9] on another matter:\u00a0http:\/\/sistertoldjah.com\/archives\/2011\/08\/24\/senator-obama-calls-pres-obama-unpatriotic-for-adding-trillions-to-national-debt\/<\/a><\/p>\n