Showing posts with label No Quarter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No Quarter. Show all posts

Saturday, September 6, 2014

On high alert

Here's the latest from friend and radio colleague Larry Johnson, who is posting from Europe. (As previously noted, Larry was formerly employed by the CIA and the State Department; today he's consultant and frequently quoted on counterterrorism, intel and international matters.) This appeared on his blog, No Quarter. A seasoned and reasonable observer/commentator, Larry discovered something -- unreported elsewhere -- while in Paris.














Paris on High Alert, But Baghdad the Target
Something is going on in Paris, at least last night. Police were out in massive numbers surrounding the U.S. Embassy and the British Embassy. No public warning was issued, however.
I happened to be walking with the wife along the Avenue des Champs-Élysées on the Champs Elysee last night heading towards Place de La Concorde. Couple of blocks west of Place de la Concorde we ran into a gauntlet of police. Vehicles parked bumper to bumper. Officers kitted out, some with body armor and automatic weapons.
But the real concern is with the Americans still in Baghdad. The first tell was Obama finally authorizing the deployment last week of an additional 350 troops to the Green Zone. The threat from ISIS is not abating. Chatter is hot and heavy about something happening on the anniversary of 11 September.
I am not enjoying the delicious irony of Mr. Nobel Peace Prize Obama (granted that prize for simply being a nice looking black man with no accomplishments) conducting more drone strikes than George W. Bush and reversing course on carrying out military operations in Iraq. It is just the reality. Unfortunately, Obama is worried more about managing the domestic political consequences of taking action against ISIS than he is in crafting a genuine strategy to deal with the menace.



















Monday, December 30, 2013

The New York Times' on Benghazi: A political whitewash & a pack of lies

When the New York Times published "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi" (by David D. Kirkpatric) this weekend, Obama Administration supporters -- particularly those backing former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton -- hailed the story as proof they had been right all along: the story said the deadly attack on the "embassy" in Libya was conducted by a group unconnected to al Qaeda, and that it was brought on by a YouTube video they felt slurred Islam.

From the NY Times - Esam Omran Al-Fetori/Reuters

Beginning late Saturday night and continuing on through Sunday's news chat shows, the Clintonistas/Democrats triumphantly paraded Kirkpatric's findings anywhere they could get an audience. It wasn't long, however, before those in the know (from the military, intelligence and diplomatic realms) started coming forward to counter the NYT's report. In short, they were seething with anger over what they perceived as a report that was not only wrong, but also was constructed to protect the legacy of President Obama...and, more importantly, shield Mrs. Clinton from a scandal that could derail her presidential aspirations.

What follows is a piece by Larry Johnson -- reprinted with permission from his fine blog, No Quarter(Disclosure: Larry is a radio colleague.) He worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. 



Understanding the Attack in Benghazi and the NY Times Lie


By Larry Johnson on December 30, 2013 @ No Quarter
Hillary Clinton and her advocates in the media are busy trying to muddle what actually happened in Benghazi, including the decision at Hillary’s State Department to ignore warnings of a deteriorating security situation, and the failure of the Obama Administration to respond competently to the attack as it unfolded. So let’s get the record straight.
This was not an “intelligence” failure. The intelligence correctly noted a worsening threat. It was a policy and leadership failure. The ultimate responsibility for this belongs to Hillary Clinton and Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy. Unfortunately, the Accountability Review Board (which was chaired by Ambassador Thomas Pickering) was appointed by Hillary, supervised by Patrick Kennedy. Pickering and company decided to not interview Hillary Clinton as part of their bogus investigation. But they did affix blame on Ambassador Chris Stevens for not kicking Washington in the testicles for failing to respond to their repeated requests for more security:
2. Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.
Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a “shared responsibility” by the bureaus in Washington charged with supporting the post, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. That said, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi.
The short-term, transitory nature of Special Mission Benghazi’s staffing, with talented and committed, but relatively inexperienced, American personnel often on temporary assignments of 40 days or less, resulted in diminished institutional knowledge, continuity, and mission capacity.
This is the ultimate Washington move–blame the dead guy, who is unable to rebut the allegation, and exonerate the ones who ignored the actual requests for more security.
No one predicted the attack in Benghazi on 11 September 2012. But that’s not unusual. Most terrorist attacks that have occurred over the last 30 years have come without any specific advance warning.
The real problem for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama starts around 4pm Eastern Daylight Time in Washington, DC when the attack started on the so-called “US Consulate” in Benghazi. The facility was not a Consulate. It was a “special facility” and existed primarily to handle the intelligence operations being conducted from the CIA facility at the location now knows as, “The Annex.”
Once the attack started the Operations Center for Diplomatic Security was notified. In accordance with standard procedures for this kind of event, a NOIWON (National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer’s Network) was initiated. This means that the Ops Centers at the White House, the CIA, DOD, the FBI, Homeland Security, the NSA and the National Counter Terrorism Center were alerted. Normally, when those Centers are alerted they start contacting the relevant officers and officials in their organizations who have a need to know.
At State Department, the Ops Center was instructed to NOT NOTIFY the Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism. The Senior CT official in charge of handling overseas responses to terrorist attacks found out about the assault when he received a phone call from military Special Operations personnel who, in response to this news, initiated planning, per standing orders, for a possible overseas contingency response. What does that mean in English? We alerted our shooters to stand by to pack their bags and prepare to move Libya to help rescue US personnel and stop the bad guys. However, they do not move without an order from the President. They can pack their bags, but will not board aircraft unless Barack Obama says go. Obama dithered.
Obama met with Secretary of Defense Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff around 5pm. The attack in Benghazi had been underway for almost an hour. More alarming was the news from the front–Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing. No one knew where he was. Was he kidnapped? Dead? In hiding? No one knew. That’s the critical point.
As someone who has been involved in the response to these kinds of incidents for 25 years, and my experience includes helping train special ops forces for responding to these kinds of incidents, what did not happen next is truly shocking. Normally, a Secure Video Telephone Conference would be convened. This is the CSG (aka: the Counter Terrorism Security Group). The CSG consists of representatives from the US national security community who are experts in terrorism and the possible responses/options that should be recommended to the President.
But this groups was not convened. The Department of State, and I’m talking Hillary Clinton and Pat Kennedy here, in coordination with the National Security Council, and this includes current CIA Director John Brennan, decided not to assemble the CSG because they did not want to admit that a terrorist attack was taking place on the anniversary of the 2001 attacks that devastated America.
I do not blame Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton for not having full info about what was happening in Benghazi. That is fog of war. That is normal. But they did know one critical, undeniable fact–AMBASSADOR CHRIS STEVENS WAS MISSING. And what did they do? NOTHING!!
No tasking of intelligence assets. No contingency planning for finding and rescuing Stevens. Nothing but Crickets. It is essential for the American public to understand that the machinery of Government dedicated to combating terrorism that normally would have been activated to start planning and gathering resources was frozen. This was a deliberate, conscious decision by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Instead, the response was handled piece meal. The US National Counter Terrorism force eventually was alerted and deployed, but they left late and arrived in the theater long after the attack had ceased.
One other important point to note. Once mortars were fired on the CIA Annex, it was clear, with no doubt, that this was a pre-planned, organized attack. A retired military officer at the Department of State, an individual with experience in training and employing mortar squads, knew immediately the implications of mortar fire on the CIA site. This was not a weapon of opportunity nor serendipity. It was pre-planned. The mortar is a crew served weapon and was “sighted” in on the CIA base. What does that mean? The terrorists who were firing the mortar had trained in advance to ensure they could fire the weapon a specific distance to hit the target.
And what did Hillary and Obama initially claim? That this was a spontaneous riot incited by an obscure anti-Muslim video. That was a lie. Knowledgeable, experienced military officers communicated the reality of the mortar fire to Secretary Clinton and to the White House. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton chose to ignore those informed briefings.
As the attack unfolded in Benghazi, no one in Washington or on the ground in Benghazi knew how long the attack would last. There was no prior warning that the assault would be confined to a set period of time. So why did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton react so passively? That is the key question they have refused to answer.
They deliberately covered up what happened and embarked on a propaganda campaign to deceive the American people. Remember what Susan Rice told ABC’s Jake Tapper?
ABC’s “This Week”:
JAKE TAPPER: So, first of all, what is the latest you can tell us on who these attackers were at the embassy or at the consulate in Benghazi? We’re hearing that the Libyans have arrested people. They’re saying that some people involved were from outside the country, that there might have even been Al Qaeda ties. What’s the latest information?
MS. RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
This was not the result of fog of war. This was a lie. A deliberate deception.
If the American public could get access to the Top Secret briefings that were prepared for Senior Policymakers, including Obama, Clinton and Panetta, on the evening of September 11th regarding what was unfolding in Benghazi, they would be shocked by the clarity and specificity that was available early on. The people/group involved in the attack was quickly identified thanks to the work of one of the US intelligence agencies. As House Intel Committee Chairman noted on Fox News Sunday, an Al Qaeda affiliate was clearly identified as having a critical role in the attack.
It is essential to keep these facts in mind as the New York Times and other media outlets try to confuse and deceive the American public. What happened in Benghazi on the 11th of September 2012 was a premeditated terrorist attack against US citizens, who were denied requested security assistance by their Government, carried out by Islamic extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda. This is not a theory. This is a fact.


Sunday, October 24, 2010

What we found in Iraq...

...WMDs.

Here lie the silent witnesses to Saddam Hussein's use of Weapons of Mass Destruction...

The most recent WikiLeaks document dump, has revealed a plethora of unknown facts (as well as scads of obvious and/or long-known bits of information), but perhaps the most surprising one is that there were - in fact - Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq.

The idea of creating massive amounts of destruction was never a stranger to Saddam Hussein...

From WIRED: "By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction. An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

(Read more here...)

If this is all true, and there doesn't seem to be a reason to doubt this material, you've got to wonder how this will play with mainstream media and the Left. (OK, guessing time is over - it won't be covered...)

Early victims - Kurds - of Hussein's WMD program...

Full disclosure/providing balance: My radio colleague, Larry Johnson (former CIA officer, State Dept. counter-terrorism officer, CT consultant), writes the following at his prize-winning blog, No Quarter: "Many Americans still don’t understand that WMD was pretext to justify our invasion of Iraq. It had nothing to do with the reality. The only Weapon of Mass Destruction aka WMD is a nuclear weapon and Saddam’s nuclear program had been dismantled. Chemical and biological weapons are always referred to as WMDs but the fact of the matter is that those types of weapons do not cause “mass destruction.” They are potential mass casualty weapons, but are difficult to use and their effect neutralized by temperature changes and weather factors such as wind. Saddam also did not have biological weapons. He and his cronies held onto some remnants of Chemical weapons but they did so for only one reason–FEAR OF IRAN."

Friday, July 30, 2010

A picture that's worth at least one word...

The one that immediately comes to mind is..."boorish."



This photo of President Barack Obama and his advisers in the Oval Office speaks volumes.

When you think of all the images you've seen taken in the Oval Office, do you remember photos of Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan or any other U.S. president putting his feet up on that desk?

From the vaunted blog, No Quarter, Larry Johnson hits the nail on the head:

"Barack Obama is the incredible shrinking President. It is becoming a theme. The man not only is failing to act on what he promised to do, but he is quickly cultivating an image of a petulant, immature child. Let’s start with lack of respect for the office. This picture summarizes the problem in graphic detail...It is one think to put your feet up on a Steelcase desk or a piece of crap Formica. But this is the Oval Office and that desk is not just any old piece of furniture. It is the Resolute Desk, which was built from the timbers of the HMS Resolute and was a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes. This is a national heirloom. Talk about lacking in class."

Exactly...

(h/t: Mr. Johnson...photo and graf...)

Monday, May 3, 2010

Just the break we needed...

DEVELOPING NEWS (From The New York Times) - "Arrest Made in Times Square Bomb Case Man From Pakistan Tied to S.U.V. Found With Explosives - Authorities arrested a Connecticut man, Faisal Shahzad, at Kennedy Airport early Tuesday in connection with Saturday’s failed Times Square car bombing, people briefed on the investigation said."

Add NYT: "Unexploded Car Bomb Left Trove of Evidence - The homemade bomb found in Times Square provided investigators with plenty of potential forensic clues."


First responders examine the IED-laden SUV... (Photo: sickhop.com)

From the Associated Press: "Holder: Car Bomb Suspect Tried to Fly to Dubai"...


Onlookers stand outside the police barricades in Times Square...(Photo: newsweek.com)


Times Square: back to the hustle-and-bustle - for now...(Photo: longwarjournal.org)

Via The Drudge Report:

The perspective of someone who "knows this stuff" - Larry Johnson, is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm with expertise combating terrorism and investigating money laundering. Larry - who I have been privileged to team with on the John Batchelor Show, works with U.S. military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering. He previously worked with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, and is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security,crisis and risk management.

The following, from his acclaimed blog, No Quarter, is an interesting - and somewhat contrary - take on the attempted bombing...

More Terrorism [B.S.]

By Larry Johnsonclose / Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.netSite: http://noquarterusa.net/

May 3, 2010 at 7:40 PM in Current Affairs

Let the turf battle begin. FBI is going full monty to seize control of the investigation into the failed car fire in NYC and is busy leaking info that there is an international angle. Mind you I write, “failed car fire.” If you want to believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny and that this contraption was a “car bomb” then have at it. In my experience a bomb must have the means and likelihood of exploding. The mess in the Nissan SUV was not even a good incendiary.

C’mon, it ain’t that tough to set gasoline on fire. Propane? Open the tank and strike a match (or even a small spark). But the brain surgeon who assembled this Rube Goldberg collection could not even figure that out.

At what point will we as a people rediscover our backbone? Gauging our collective overblown reaction to the non-explosion in NYC’s Time Square we have become a quivering mass of jello. Listening to Charles Krauthammer tonight, for example, who was ranting about terrorism and the need for military measures, etc., makes you wonder how we ever won the Cold War against a real enemy that possessed robust, deadly military capabilities. If Charles had exhibited the same attitude towards the Soviets he would have had no bladder control and would have been sitting in an eternal pool of urine. That’s what you do when you piss yourself out of fear.

I have no doubt that there are extremist Muslims who would love to kill Americans and destroy our cities. If desire equaled capability then we would be toast. But thankfully we do not live in that nightmare of a fantasy world. We inhabit a real world where the ability to shoot a gun or build a bomb requires training by people who are knowledgeable and qualified to teach such skills. What should we be learning about the capabilities of the various radical Islamic groups?

They are not very good. Why? Because the policy of killing and capturing these folks has been pretty effective. Not just the U.S. Countries like Yemen and Saudi Arabia and Jordan have stepped up to the plate and gone after the radicals. When you eliminate senior cadre and experienced operatives you weaken the ability of the group or organization to conduct offensive operations. It is no surprise that the Christmas underwear bomber could only manage to torch his pubes and his balls. Improvised explosives, especially in the hands of amateurs, are not easy or simple. They can be damn dangerous to those who do not know what they are doing.

The botched plot in NYC is even more telling. Let’s assume that the instructions can from overseas. We had a willing soul willing to drive the vehicle to Times Square (but apparently not committed enough to crank the thing off while sitting in the vehicle). I don’t know if this was an aspiring jihadist or jilted boyfriend.

Regardless, the individual did not even have enough knowledge to understand that the contraption assembled in the back of the Nissan would not explode.

One more pet peeve. Krauthammer was wearing his ass prominently on his smug mug, complaining that the special High Value Interrogation team had not been activated. Chuckie, that team exists for overseas operations. It is not a domestic capability. The Republicans continue to stir the pot about treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter. Well boys and girls, here’s the cold hard facts–the NYPD and the FBI are light years better than any military organization in the world in investigating an incident like this. The military is a blunt instrument (even the much touted special ops units like Delta and the SEALs). Can we at least appreciate that we have a legal system and police capability quite competent to handle the threat at hand? Or do we want to become Cuba or the former Soviet Union and militarize everything and, in the process, surrender our civil rights and legal constraints on executive power?

I’m with Thomas Jefferson and George Washington on this.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

"Like a canary in a coal mine..."



Like a canary in a coal mine that suddenly stops singing, the signs are all there…

From Larry Johnson of No Quarter – “[Larry Doyle] interviewed the founder and President of the Consumer Metrics Institute, Richard Davis. Why should you care? Davis has developed a system for using data readily available in the public sector to accurately track what is really going on in the economy. And the news is not good. Richard Davis has his hands on tracking what consumers are really doing (or not doing). Here’s the bottom line–if consumers ain’t consuming the economy ain’t growing. Click on the link in Larry’s article. Listen to Larry and please, please give Richard Davis some of your precious time. You may not feel better after listening but you will be better informed.”

Yes we candismantle the economy in four years. (h/t: Ann Marlowe)

Florida, Florida, Florida: the Sunshine State’s unemployment numbers are its highest – EVER.

Interest rates to rise?former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan Calls Treasury Yields ‘Canary in the Mine.’

Add Treasury: So why lack of interest…which will probably lead to a rise in interest (rates)? Chalk another win up for ObamaCare!

Add ObamaCare: Wait, I thought passing that bill would result in a bump in the polls…

The "coal mine?"

As if you didn’t know, who is making out when it comes to pay? Those on government payrolls. (Surprised?)


Making the Stimulus work for...you or someone on your dime?

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Did Obama [screw over] the CIA?

This was written by Larry Johnson - a former CIA employee, a counter terrorism expert and a frequent guest on TV/radio shows. His blog, No Quarter, is considered a must-read for those interested in the intersection of national security, military, intelligence and geopolitical issues. I highly recommend No Quarter, where the post (below) currently appears.


Larry Johnson...

Did Obama [screw over] the CIA?
By Larry Johnson on January 2, 2010 at 11:59 PM

Short answer? Yes! President Barack Obama’s public statement of condolence last Thursday regarding the suicide bombing of a CIA base in eastern Afghanistan may have been heartfelt but it was a bonehead move.

In fact, it probably puts more CIA personnel at risk and compromises a CIA operation. Obama issued the following statement last Thursday:

Full text: Obama statement to CIA
Obama said he relied on the fruits of the CIA’s work every day. U.S. President Barack Obama has sent his condolences to CIA staff after the US spy agency confirmed seven officers were killed in a suicide bomb attack in Afghanistan on Wednesday, 30 December 2009. Here is the full text of the US president’s letter:

To the men and women of the CIA:
I write to mark a sad occasion in the history of the CIA and our country.
Yesterday, seven Americans in Afghanistan gave their lives in service to their country.
Michelle and I have their families, friends and colleagues in our thoughts and prayers.
These brave Americans were part of a long line of patriots who have made great sacrifices for their fellow citizens, and for our way of life.
The United States would not be able to maintain the freedom and security that we cherish without decades of service from the dedicated men and women of the CIA.
You have helped us understand the world as it is, and taken great risks to protect our country.
You have served in the shadows, and your sacrifices have sometimes been unknown to your fellow citizens, your friends, and even your families.
In recent years, the CIA has been tested as never before. Since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, you have served on the frontlines in directly confronting the dangers of the 21st Century.
Because of your service, plots have been disrupted, American lives have been saved, and our Allies and partners have been more secure.
Your triumphs and even your names may be unknown to your fellow Americans, but your service is deeply appreciated.
Indeed, I know firsthand the excellent quality of your work because I rely on it every day.
The men and women who gave their lives in Afghanistan did their duty with courage, honor and excellence, and we must draw strength from the example of their sacrifice.
They will take their place on the Memorial Wall at Langley alongside so many other heroes who gave their lives on behalf of their country.
And they will live on in the hearts of those who loved them, and in the freedom that they gave their lives to defend.
May God bless the memory of those we lost, and may God bless the United States of America.

So what is the problem? Nice sentiment. Right? Wrong. Acknowledging the location of a CIA base in a theater of war compromises mission and puts people at further risk. Here is the implication going forward–the CIA will close this base and have to find another. Anyone else who comes to this base will be assumed to be a CIA operative. While I can appreciate the political imperative to appear sympathetic to the loss of lives at the CIA, Obama had a larger responsibility–protect the CIA and their mission and ultimately the nation.

The fault does not entirely lie with Obama. The CIA was sloppy in providing operational cover for these people. Let’s face it. If the deceased had operated under military cover we would only be mourning the loss of six more military personnel. No one outside of the Agency or the families of those who died would have realized the CIA took a hit.

But most of the dead were under State Department cover. Hell, the frigging White House did nothing to try to cover that position. Instead, Barack compounded the problem of CIA’s inadequate cover by going public with his statement of condolence. I don’t ascribe a malevolent intent to Obama. This is just another example of an amateur not ready for prime time.

Barack Obama is not the first one to help blow the cover of a CIA operation. Remember the death of John Michael Spann at Kala-i-Jangi prison in Afghanistan in November of 2001? George Tenet, the CIA Director at the time, did everything short of crawling into Spann’s coffin. He too made a public spectacle of something that should have been kept low key and out of sight.

And let’s not forget the Bush Administration’s outing of CIA ops officer, Valerie Plame. I don’t want to see Republican’s doing high dungeon over Obama’s exposure of the CIA mission in Afghanistan when they came up with all sorts of bullshit justification for ruining the career of a frontline ops officer who was busy trying to collect intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.

Once again a President is playing politics with the CIA. I hated it under Bush and I hate it under Obama. The CIA should not be a political football but politicians cannot help themselves. They want to play this game.


The president, joined by Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta, addressed CIA employees at the agency's headquarters in Langley, VA, last year. The men are standing in front of Memorial Wall, which is adorned with stars representing CIA members who have given their lives in the line of duty. Seven new stars will be added following a suicide bomber's attack on an agency base in Afghanistan last week.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Tonight's radio show: the bombing attempt's aftermath



The attempted bombing of the Delta/Northwest airliner in Detroit on Christmas day will be the subject of tonight’s roundtable on The John Batchelor Show. I’ll be joining John and fellow guests Larry Johnson (No Quarter) and Craig Unger (Vanity Fair) at 7 p.m. PST for the discussion. You can listen to the show at KSFO-AM 560 San Francisco/Northern California, WABC-AM 77 NY, WMAL-AM 630 Washington, D.C., and on XM/Sirius Satellite Radio. If you’re not in one of the listening areas, you can tune-in via any of those stations’ websites.

See you on the radio!