Brackets Barry goes to War to defend Al Qaeda?

I know, I know, the White House's preferred terminology is that the U.S. is in a state of "military kinetic action" with the Libyan regime. When the no fly zone was imposed we were assured that it was to protect civilians from genocide and that coalition forces would not engage regime forces to defend or aid the rebels. Recent media reports indicate that this is no longer the case, if it ever was. So, who exactly are these rebels that we are siding with?

It would appear that at least one, like Col. Qaddafi has American blood on his hands. John Rosenthal of Pajamasmedia covers the story of Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi whose troops U.S. forces are aiding in Libya:

Shortly after unrest broke out in eastern Libya in mid-February, reports emerged that an “Islamic Emirate” had been declared in the eastern Libyan town of Darnah and that, furthermore, the alleged head of that Emirate, Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, was a former detainee at the American prison camp in Guantánamo. The reports, which originated from Libyan government sources, were largely ignored or dismissed in the Western media.

Now, however, al-Hasadi has admitted in an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore that he fought against American forces in Afghanistan. (Hat-tip: Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard.) Al-Hasadi says that he is the person responsible for the defense of Darnah — not the town’s “Emir.” In a previous interview with Canada’s Globe and Mail, he claimed to have a force of about 1,000 men and to have commanded rebel units in battles around the town of Bin Jawad.

Did his efforts against America end when he was captured in Pakistan? Actually, he was just getting started:

In his more recent remarks to Il Sole 24 Ore, al-Hasadi admits not only to fighting against U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but also to recruiting Libyans to fight against American forces in Iraq. As noted in my earlier PJM report here, captured al-Qaeda personnel records show that al-Hasadi’s hometown of Darnah sent more foreign fighters to fight with al-Qaeda in Iraq than any other foreign city or town and “far and away the largest per capita number of fighters.” Al-Hasadi told Il Sole 24 Ore that he personally recruited “around 25” Libyans to fight in Iraq. “Some have come back and today are on the front at Ajdabiya,” al-Hasadi explained, “They are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists.” “The members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader,” al-Hasadi added.

The report also includes the tidbit that British intelligence believes al-Hasadi was released as part of a deal that Qaddafi struck with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group(LIGF), which is affiliated with al-Qaeda. So, if the Brits know who this guy is and what he's done, shouldn't the White House?

What evidence is there that U.S. forces are aiding him at all? Here's some more from Rosenthal:

Reporting from the outskirts of Ajdabiya on Wednesday, Antoine Estève of the French news channel i-Télé noted that just “minutes” after rebel positions had been hit by artillery fire from Libyan government forces, the Libyan government positions were then bombarded by coalition aircraft. (Estève’s report can be viewed here.) In a March 19 dispatch from Benghazi for the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, correspondent Lorenzo Cremonesi cites rebel leaders as saying that they were given the opportunity to provide NATO with a map indicating enemy targets that they wanted bombed.

From the Wall St Journal:

The allies also seemed intent on helping the opposition win back the eastern town of Ajdabiya, the site of back-and-forth fighting between the government and rebels in recent weeks.

and

"In Ajdabiya to Misrata, our targeting priorities are mechanized forces, artillery…[and] mobile surface-to-air missile sites," Rear Adm. Gerard Hueber, chief of staff for the U.S. task force in the Mediterranean Sea, told reporters by teleconference from the USS Mount Whitney.

I'll finish with this quote from the NY Times:

Admiral Hueber also said that the coalition was communicating with rebel forces. But later, when he was pressed on whether the United States was telling rebels not to go down certain roads because there would be airstrikes there, he said he had misspoken. American military officials have said there are no “official communications” with the rebels, which remains a delicate issue. Contact with the rebels would reflect a direct American military intervention in the civil war of another country.

The Obama administration, as usual is not playing it straight with the American people. We deserve to know who we're supporting and towards what end. President Obama can start by explaining why we are giving succor to someone like al-Hasadi, who rightly should be targeted by our forces as an enemy, not treated as an ally.

Barry Brackets: Complainer in Chief

With all the momentous real news stories happening around the globe this month I'm surprised the editors' of this newspaper can't find bigger fish to fry than Rep. Michele Bachmann "Huh? Where was that shot fired?" (3/16). Being New England born and raised I find her ignorance of American history and Massachusett's place in it eye roll worthy. But is it truly newsworthy? I can't recall reading anything in this paper when then candidate Obama added ten states to our union: "I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.". Politicians with all the wind they expel are guaranteed to have a gaffe or two to their discredit, just look at Vice President Biden. I would like to share a quote from the NY Times no less that I find far more troubling, which has received scant media attention: "Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”.

Our president complains about the burden of being the leader of the free world and longs to lead a dictatorship and that's not news? I find his choice of China quite telling. He wouldn't have to worry about Fox News or talk radio because the state controls the media. If he ruled in Beijing instead of Washington D.C. he could have used the military to crush those pesky tea partiers just like the pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. Also, his party wouldn't have taken a "shellacking" last fall, losing control of the House because China is a one party state. Now, our president has gone to the finest schools and possesses an unrivaled temperament so I'm sure he, unlike Hu Jintao would practice the most enlightened despotism the planet has ever known.

Actually what's telling is that our president is wilting before our eyes and railing against the scrutiny of a press that has treated him with kid gloves. Any other president that possessed Obama's sorry record would be savaged daily by the media. We are on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe in Japan, unemployment counting the discouraged and those only able to find part-time work is 16%, every trip to the gas station and the grocery store gets more expensive, the country's budget is bleeding red ink threatening fiscal ruin and our president is working on his NCAA brackets. The media seems intent on propping Obama in the hopes that his historic election won't be perceived as a failure by the public. I wouldn't be surprised if the same instinct caused the press of his day to give our first president the same benefit of the doubt. However, it should be clear to everyone by now that Barack Obama is no George Washington. The press plays a vital role informing the electorate and I hope they will do so (paraphrasing Dr. King) without regard to the color of a president's skin or their party affiliation, but by the success or failure of their policies, actions or increasingly inaction.