Petraeus: Shahzad had no direct contacts with terrorists; Update: “Regular” and “substantial” Taliban links?

posted at 4:19 pm on May 7, 2010 by Allahpundit

Thus does an already weird story get weirder.

Faisal Shahzad was “a lone wolf” who never had direct contact with militants in his homeland of Pakistan, Gen. David Petraeus told The Associated Press…

Shahzad, after his Monday night arrest aboard a Dubai-bound airplane, claimed he received bomb-making training during a five-month stay in Pakistan. But Petraeus’s comments cast doubt on his story…

Despite the general’s statement, investigators were still probing how the unemployed Shahzad had enough money to buy a weapon, an SUV, bomb-making materials and a plane ticket home.

Petraeus isn’t the only one who’s skeptical. According to McClatchy, no fewer than six U.S. officials confirm that there’s no hard evidence yet that Shahzad joined in any terrorist reindeer games while in Pakistan. That news prompted a full-body snarkgasm at HuffPo over how those gullible wingnut stenographers at the New York Times got caught hyping the terror threat again. Minor problem one: The McClatchy story is stenography too, relying on quotes from skeptics to try to explain why Shahzad’s bomb was so inept. Minor problem two: Starting with the fact that the Taliban video claiming credit for the attack was uploaded in Shahzad’s home state of Connecticut and continuing to today’s reports of the feds looking for a money courier who funneled large sums of cash to Shahzad, it sure does look like he acted in concert with someone, if not Taliban HQ. Minor problem three: It wasn’t just the Times that pushed the story claiming mounting evidence of links between Shahzad and jihadi groups. The Journal did too. And it wasn’t just U.S. officials in the Journal’s piece who thought the links exist:

Pakistani investigators also are probing Mr. Shahzad’s possible connections with Jaish-e-Muhammad, an outlawed Islamist militant group, after the arrest Tuesday of Tohaid Ahmed and Mohammed Rehan in Karachi.
A senior Pakistani government official said the two men were believed to have links to Jaish. Mr. Ahmed had been in email contact with Mr. Shahzad; Mr. Rehan took Mr. Shahzad to South Waziristan, the official said.

There, Mr. Shahzad received training in explosives in a camp run by Qari Hussain, the official said. Mr. Hussain is a senior commander with Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, the Pakistan Taliban’s formal name, and trains suicide bombers, the official said. Mr. Hussain is also a cousin of Hakimullah Mehsud, the Pakistan Taliban’s chief. The 30-year-old Mr. Shahzad has admitted to investigators that he received training from militants in Waziristan, U.S. officials said…

More than a dozen people have so far been picked up in Karachi, Faisalabad and Khyber-Pakhtunkhawa (formerly known as the North West Frontier Province). According to one senior Pakistani official, most of the people arrested in the sweep belonged to Jaish and a Sunni sectarian offshoot, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.

I don’t know why Petraeus and the Pakistanis are on different pages. But then, I also don’t know why McClatchy’s report should be given any more credence than this new one from WaPo noting that investigators believe Shahzad’s claims of having hooked up with the Taliban over there:

Officials stressed that investigators are still struggling to come up with a cohesive account of how Shahzad evolved into a would-be terrorist but that they are increasingly convinced that his accounts to interrogators, in particular his assertion that he was trained by the Pakistani Taliban, are on the mark. It is still unclear whether the militant group mainly known for strikes inside Pakistan went beyond training Shahzad to conceiving or carrying out the plot.

“We have nothing that is contradictory to what he is telling us,” said a senior Obama administration official, adding that undisclosed new information from Shahzad’s interrogation “sheds some light” on his motivation.

Another WaPo piece out today reports that the guy who brought Shahzad to northwest Pakistan was arrested at a mosque linked to jihadi subgroup Jaish-e-Mohammed, and that another 30 suspected terrorists were rounded up yesterday for questioning in connection with the plot. Exit question: What’s Petraeus up to here? Even if he thinks Shahzad might not have had contact with any groups, given that Shahzad himself claims that he did, why not wait to see what happens with the interrogations?

Update: Odder and odder.

Shahzad’s connection to the Taliban was “regular” and “substantial,” says a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. shahzad linked up with the Pakistani Taliban online, according to separate law enforcement and intelligence officials close to the investigation, making him their first known Western recruit.

But Pakistani officials suspect the Taliban kept Shahzad at arms length out of fear he was an American agent. That is reinforced, they say, by the crudeness of the bomb and what one senior Pakistani government official called a “comedy of errors” in how he executed his plot.

“These groups might give disgruntled young people from America some guidance, but they don’t expose them to first-rate trainers, nor will they take them into their sanctuary,” the senior Pakistani government official said. “What these groups fear is that they’re CIA.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

How would the honroable general know what this guy hadn’t done?

Akzed on May 7, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Sorry I have to disagree with the good General.

sandee on May 7, 2010 at 4:22 PM

I give up.

Weight of Glory on May 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM

I don’t know why Petraeus and the Pakistanis are on different pages

1. um, because pakistan is NOT an ally, and rougly 30% of the pakistani cia (the ‘isi’) is in cahoots with the taliban?

2. perhaps Petraeus is saying “the usa has no solid evidence of contacts with terrorists”, while the Pakistanis are saying “pakistan actually DOES have evidence of him contacting the taliban” (see #1 for how!)

Occam’s razor!

battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM

What’s Petraeus up to here?

Maybe Obama told him to say that. You know, since they are all buddy buddy now.

upinak on May 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM

He evoloved into a terrorist, by his own account, because of the drone attacks. It is Obama’s fault!

bopbottle on May 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM

How would the honroable general know what this guy hadn’t done?

Akzed on May 7, 2010 at 4:21 PM

The teleprompter told him.

I am sure that the guy who just defaulted on his house was able to purchase a first class ticket to Dubai… please connect the dots…

Why are these people covering for terrorists?

tetriskid on May 7, 2010 at 4:24 PM

I am sure the Obama administration want all of us to believe this is a lone wolf who, depressed over his foreclosure, acted out. They are desperate for any narrative that might get them off the hook for terror attack number 3.

bopbottle on May 7, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Also McClatchy is a not a credible source of info. They are all clowns.

tetriskid on May 7, 2010 at 4:26 PM

So just who are these anonymous sources that are feeding misinformation to the news repeaters? Anyone in the news media beginning to suspect their sources are not reliable or that they (the news repeaters) are being played?

We already know that we dare not trust *anything* spread by The Obama Administration.

Skandia Recluse on May 7, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Gen. Petreaus is in the military, not the NYPD, the FBI or the CIA, so why is he commenting on this aspect of the story at this time?

myrenovations on May 7, 2010 at 4:27 PM

How did a guy who lost his house buy a first class ticket to Dubai?

Nobody is even doing basic high school journalism.

Very scary.

tetriskid on May 7, 2010 at 4:27 PM

If Petraeus is correct why did this guy spend five months in Pohkeestan?Doesn’t compute. To learn bomb making just because he’s pissed all he had to do is go on the internet.He would have gotten better info. There’s more to this.

sandee on May 7, 2010 at 4:27 PM

huh?
OK, so is this the story?
This guy was a lone wolf with no terror ties but an unlimited amount of cash which the authorities were aware of in 1999 when he entered the US with a suitcase full. BUT he was unable to pay his mortgage and upset about drone attacks so sometime after his normal everyday vacation in Pakistan he just all of a sudden decided to blow up Times Square.
Is that the story today?

ORconservative on May 7, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Weird that every sympathy story coming out isn’t refuted as fast as the stories about his associations.

fourdeucer on May 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Exit question: What’s Petraeus up to here? Even if he thinks Shahzad might not have had contact with any groups, given that Shahzad himself claims that he did, why not wait to see what happens with the interrogations?

I don’t think they are all that mutually exclusive. This guy could have been some inept hanger on who wanted to be a big bad terrorist, but the real terrorists in Pakistan did not think he could handle it so he decided he would show them. He is still a jihadi, even if he is an incompetent one. I bet there are all sorts of people on the fringes of those groups, fellow travelers as it were.

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM

What’s Petraeus up to here?

Maybe Obama told him to say that. You know, since they are all buddy buddy now.

upinak on May 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM

I don’t think Patraues is anymore buddy buddy with Obama than he was with Bush. And I also don’t think he would say something just because Obama told him to.

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Perhaps there is a Chinese connection? He did have fireworks in the car after all. It’s entirely plausible he was assisted by Nepalize seperatists you know…

/

catmman on May 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Despite the general’s statement, investigators were still probing how the unemployed Shahzad had enough money to buy a weapon, an SUV, bomb-making materials and a plane ticket home.

They both appear to have been wayward sons of their nations’ establishments—Shahzad’s father was a retired vice marshal of Pakistan’s air force

What’s Petraeus up to here?

Sure sign of wishing to become a politician, speaking from all sides of the mouth, on all matters, with expiration dates and plausible deniability…

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Exit question: What’s Petraeus up to here? Even if he thinks Shahzad might not have had contact with any groups, given that Shahzad himself claims that he did, why not wait to see what happens with the interrogations?

Petraeu doesn’t want to tip our hand as to what we do and do not know.

Guardian on May 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Even if he thinks Shahzad might not have had contact with any groups, given that Shahzad himself claims that he did

LOL.

Totally joking here, but you know what would be JUST AWESOME? That he ‘thought’ he was meeting with Pakistani Taliban, but it turned out that he actually met with…
…..Israeli Mossad agents?

And that they taught him “bombmaking” that was actually just total non-explosive duds, and they set him up?

Ah, if only it were so…

battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM

He was working directly with Glenn Beck, right Zsa Zsa?

NoDonkey on May 7, 2010 at 4:34 PM

If Petraeus has convincing evidence that the guy is a lone wolf, why’s he talking to AP about it instead of sharing what he knows with the investigators? Smells fishy to me.

Dee2008 on May 7, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Come on, not realizing the American dream made him do it. It’s all GWB’s fault.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Petraeus: Shahzad had no direct contacts with terrorists

Well General, I don’t know about that, but he did have direct contact with the Koran. You might read it some time.

Exit question: What’s Petraeus up to here?

Hear no Islam, see no Islam, speak no Islam, know no Islam. If it wasn’t for Israel these Muslims would all be peaceful.

MB4 on May 7, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Absolutely bizzarro! My only thoughts are that some access to differing levels of intel than others, but even given that something seems amiss.

Whatever the case, the confusing chorus of reports certainly implies incompetency, cover-up, or both.

Archimedes on May 7, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Gen. Petreaus is in the military, not the NYPD, the FBI or the CIA, so why is he commenting on this aspect of the story at this time?

myrenovations on May 7, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Well General Petraeus is the commanding officer of Centcom. Centcom’s area of responsibility stretches from Egypt to Kazahkstan, and includes Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That being said, I do believe that Petraeus has been misinformed.

Shock the Monkey on May 7, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Petraeu doesn’t want to tip our hand as to what we do and do not know.

Guardian on May 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM

So why is Gen. Petreaus commenting on this subject at this time? What is the point?

myrenovations on May 7, 2010 at 4:36 PM

Well General Petraeus is the commanding officer of Centcom. Centcom’s area of responsibility stretches from Egypt to Kazahkstan, and includes Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Shock the Monkey on May 7, 2010 at 4:35 PM

I’m aware of his position, I just don’t know why he is commenting so directly on this aspect of the investigation. It doesn’t seem right.

myrenovations on May 7, 2010 at 4:38 PM

I don’t think Patraues is anymore buddy buddy with Obama than he was with Bush. And I also don’t think he would say something just because Obama told him to.

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Ummm okay. He didn’t agree with making the military smaller? He didn’t agree with both Gates and Opbama to dismantle the defense missiles in Alaska? He didn’t take a double step back when he was asked about his stance on DADT when he admitted that he thought it shouldn’t be disbanded and then too disband it?

I like Petreaus for a loooooong time. But I lost my like when he said to dismantle the missile defense over a year ago. He has been following Obama’s orders and becoming very dangerous in my eyes concerning our Troops.

upinak on May 7, 2010 at 4:38 PM

Yahweh, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal
Would never okay the way you do your thing
Ding ding ding, ding, ding, ding
And you’ll get yours, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal
Coddlin’ and even sidin’ with that Islam stuff like you do
Boo hoo hoo, boo hoo hoo

Where have you gone, General George S. Patton?
Our nation turns its longing eyes to you
What’s that you say, David Petraeus and Stanley McCrystal?
You have banished ‘ol Blood and Guts far away
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey

Coo coo ca-choo, Mr. Pentagon
Mohammad appreciates you more than you will know
Woo woo woo, woo woo woo
Allah blesses you, yes, Mr. Pentagon
He may grant some small temporary mercy to those infidels who their own mislead and betray
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey

MB4 on May 7, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Sorry, one has to be skeptical of any comment on this attributable to Gen. Petraeus. It just doesn’t have the ring of truth. Why would he comment about this?

tomshup on May 7, 2010 at 4:39 PM

So now it’s back to the lone wolf scenario? I don’t buy that for one second. I wish I had saved the link, but I read a blog saying that they know this guy did not work alone because of one simple fact. He found a parking space on a busy night in Times Square. There had to be at least one or two other people acting as spotters and/or parking spot squatters. You don’t exactly want to drive in circles looking for a spot in one of the busiest cities in the world while driving a car bomb that has stolen plates from out of state. Then again, a person willing to do this probably doesn’t think the same way a normal guy does, so who knows?

Blind luck could be a factor, but the odds are so high against it that an accomplice is much more likely. Heck, you would still need to be somewhat lucky even with people helping you.

I am just glad that the terrorists are still slightly more incompetent than our federal government. The system is working!

Mord on May 7, 2010 at 4:39 PM

LOL.

Totally joking here, but you know what would be JUST AWESOME? That he ‘thought’ he was meeting with Pakistani Taliban, but it turned out that he actually met with…
…..Israeli Mossad agents?

And that they taught him “bombmaking” that was actually just total non-explosive duds, and they set him up?

Ah, if only it were so…

battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Lol. The sad part is I could see this totally taking off in the Arab World/Pakistan.

nyx on May 7, 2010 at 4:40 PM

The bottom line is that Shahzad was being aided and encouraged by islamists in the U.S., Pakistan and Yemen at a minimum. Petreaus is carrying Obama’s water on this.

Fletch54 on May 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Why don’t these folks hush until the actually know something? The guy got the money from somewhere.

Cindy Munford on May 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Sure sign of wishing to become a politician, speaking from all sides of the mouth, on all matters, with expiration dates and plausible deniability…

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Oh come on. He did nothing of the kind….and besides the only people that have shown any interest in Patraeus becoming a politician are conservatives who have been trying to talk him into running.

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Whatever the case, the confusing chorus of reports certainly implies incompetency, cover-up, or both.

Archimedes on May 7, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Seems like a replay of Major Nidal Hasan.

fourdeucer on May 7, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Why don’t these folks hush until the actually know something? The guy got the money from somewhere.

Cindy Munford on May 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Well yeah, obviously, but I don’t think people want them to shut up, they want information and they want it now and they want it to be what they want it to be.

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 4:43 PM

There are no coincidences!

Guy goes to pakistan and comes back with a wad of cash and an intent to kill as many people in Times Square as he can.

Answer: muslim terrorist.

WitchDoctor on May 7, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Hmmmm,…even if a Taliban connection isn’t the Administrations preferred narrative,(some T-Partier upset about Obamacare would be) it’d still be better for them than a Rad-Lib group being behind it.

Just a thought.

Archimedes on May 7, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Leave my brother, General el Petraeus alone!

محمد اغتصاب الفتيات الصغيرات. وكان والده بقرة. كانت والدته خنزير.

Aleph on May 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Ayeah…he got all that money from his long-lost rich uncle…

Put a sock in it, General E. Fibbing.

Dark-Star on May 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM

But how did he have money to buy the Pathfinder and buy a plane ticket to Dubai with cash? I thought he was supposed to be broke. Home in foreclosure etc..

It sure is strange that the General is commenting on this. I am thinking someone higher up ordered him to say this.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 7, 2010 at 4:47 PM

MB4 on May 7, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Oh my God. That was silly. Really, it was. I see, Patraeus practically wins the war in Iraq and already people are turning on him for being soft on Islam.

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Gen. David Petraeus told The Associated Press…

“Told the Associated Press”? Very nebulous statement there. And the NY Post “writers” don’t give any context to the General’s remarks.

Should be interesting to see the Leftist spin on the General’s remarks. After all, this is exactly what they want to hear from him on this subject, but on the other hand, many of them (including the current Secretary of State) called him a “liar” 3 years ago.

I can only conclude that in their warped world, Petraeus was a “liar” when he was Bush’s General, but is now “telling the truth” now that he has a new CO.

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Aleph on May 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM

LMFAO!!!!

upinak on May 7, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Mord on May 7, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Yeah I read that too, seemed like a valid analysis IMO. Something is afoot here,it’ll be interesting to watch play out.

Archimedes on May 7, 2010 at 4:49 PM

…..Israeli Mossad agents?

And that they taught him “bombmaking” that was actually just total non-explosive duds, and they set him up?

Ah, if only it were so…

battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM

And then they told him to fly to Dubai
Where they had a hotel room ready for him ;-)
Now it all makes sense

macncheez on May 7, 2010 at 4:50 PM

But how did he have money to buy the Pathfinder and buy a plane ticket to Dubai with cash? I thought he was supposed to be broke. Home in foreclosure etc..

It sure is strange that the General is commenting on this. I am thinking someone higher up ordered him to say this.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 7, 2010 at 4:47 PM

He paid $1300 for that Pathfinder, and there are bad people that could have given him money anyway, it does not mean they are all high level Taliban. There is no shortage of crazy people in Pakistan. And I think it is ridiculous to think that Patreaus is lying or just saying what he is told. He might just be saying that this is the case, so far as he knows. After all, we get this information from the media and since when did they get anything right?

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 4:51 PM

I’m aware of his position, I just don’t know why he is commenting so directly on this aspect of the investigation. It doesn’t seem right.

myrenovations on May 7, 2010 at 4:38 PM

I think he commented on it because as we both know, Pakistan is in his area of responsibility. Considering that he receives intelligence on such issues in Pakistan, he probably has not seen anything in his mind that amounts to conclusive evidence that he had been trained or aided by a terrorist organization. As I said before, I am not of that opinion.

Shock the Monkey on May 7, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Aleph on May 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM

What was that?

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Patraeus practically wins the war in Iraq

That can’t be, the Senate Majority Leader told us numerous times that war was lost.

Is this is a new war or was the Senate Majority Leader just a worthlessly stupid pants crapping liar?

NoDonkey on May 7, 2010 at 4:56 PM

I can only conclude that in their warped world, Petraeus was a “liar” when he was Bush’s General, but is now “telling the truth” now that he has a new CO.

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2010 at 4:49 PM

If you read some of these comments, you might think that works both ways.

I don’t know why the left would be happy to hear it anyway. Crazy traitor jihadi tries to kill Americans is the headline either way.

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 4:56 PM

I still say if he has any proof he should be talking to the investigators, not to the AP. Let the investigators factor in whatever he has and come to their own conclusions.

On the other hand, if it’s his opinion, then he should say it’s his opinion instead of stating it as fact.

I still don’t understand why he would want to get publicly involved in this discussion.

Dee2008 on May 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Is this is a new war or was the Senate Majority Leader just a worthlessly stupid pants crapping liar?

NoDonkey on May 7, 2010 at 4:56 PM

I’m guessing that that question is rhetorical,right?

Archimedes on May 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM

That can’t be, the Senate Majority Leader told us numerous times that war was lost.

Is this is a new war or was the Senate Majority Leader just a worthlessly stupid pants crapping liar?

NoDonkey on May 7, 2010 at 4:56 PM

This is true.

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 4:58 PM

I still don’t understand why he would want to get publicly involved in this discussion.

Dee2008 on May 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Doesn’t he kind of oversea operations in Pakistan right now?

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Funny, Drudge has nothing on this up at all, are we sure Patraeus actually said this?

Archimedes on May 7, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Nothing over at AT either, but on amusing note, LATimes refuses to endorse Sen Boxer due to lack of intellect, really!

Too funny!

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/barbara_boxer_too_stupid_for_c.html

Archimedes on May 7, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Funny, Drudge has nothing on this up at all, are we sure Patraeus actually said this?

Archimedes on May 7, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Well the Associated Press stated that Petraeus said Shahzad was acting as a “lone wolf”. Personally, I don’t think they’d make that up. I think Petraeus is either misinformed or reserving judgment until he has verifiable evidence.

Shock the Monkey on May 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Doesn’t he kind of oversea operations in Pakistan right now?

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Yeah, he oversees operations there, which probably means he has some thoughts on the matter. But why does he want to stake a position on this while the investigation is still ongoing? It kind of undermines the work of the investigators.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no hater, but I am puzzled.

Dee2008 on May 7, 2010 at 5:10 PM

I am sure that the guy who just defaulted on his house was able to purchase a first class ticket to Dubai… please connect the dots…

Why are these people covering for terrorists?

tetriskid on May 7, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Maybe he just decided that he did not want to spend his money on that house. One mortgage payment was probably about the same as that ticket.

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Yeah, he oversees operations there, which probably means he has some thoughts on the matter. But why does he want to stake a position on this while the investigation is still ongoing? It kind of undermines the work of the investigators.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no hater, but I am puzzled.

Dee2008 on May 7, 2010 at 5:10 PM

I don’t think he is actually taking a position, he is simply stating what he sees right now. To be honest, when I think about that bomb and the fact that the guy did not even use the right kind of clock, or fertilizer, I have to wonder just who did or did not train him.

I don’t get what people are pissed about myself. So what? Maybe AlQaida did not train this particular nimrod, he is still a jihadi terrorist. There are all sorts of bad actors out there. It does not in any way change or diminish the threat we face.

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 5:22 PM

With all due respect to General Petraeus, how would he know with certainty that Shahzad had NO ties to any Pakistani terrorists? Does Petraeus (or any other American) know for certain what EVERY terrorist in Pakistan is up to, even after we’ve been in Afghanistan for 8-1/2 years now and still haven’t found Bin Laden, even though most people believe he is in Pakistan? Shouldn’t Petraeus have said that he didn’t know of any connections between Shahzad and terrorists in Pakistan?

Methinks Petraeus was told to say this by his Commander in Grief, er…Chief, who needs to cover his six.

Steve Z on May 7, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Update: Odder and odder.

More like WTF?

upinak on May 7, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Methinks Petraeus was told to say this by his Commander in Grief, er…Chief, who needs to cover his six.

Steve Z on May 7, 2010 at 5:26 PM

In other words, you are calling the man a liar. Why would he do that? Presidents come and go…generals stick around.

I think he is saying what he thinks is true, and it is an insult to the man to call him a liar, just because he said something you don’t want to hear. And what is more, what difference does it make anyway? The man is still a terrorist.

What is next? Are people on the right going to start calling him General Betrayus?

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 5:40 PM

But Pakistani officials suspect the Taliban kept Shahzad at arms length out of fear he was an American agent. That is reinforced, they say, by the crudeness of the bomb and what one senior Pakistani government official called a “comedy of errors” in how he executed his plot.

“These groups might give disgruntled young people from America some guidance, but they don’t expose them to first-rate trainers, nor will they take them into their sanctuary,” the senior Pakistani government official said. “What these groups fear is that they’re CIA.”

It might also be tribal. I read somewhere that Shahzad belonged to a clan that was connected to the Taliban. He could have been getting some sort of support from some people in that group, while others did not trust him. The leadership might have thought he was a mole. And so they did not deal with him, but some members of his tribe helped him out.

Terrye on May 7, 2010 at 5:44 PM

I think some here are objecting because Petraeus seems to be confirming Janet Napolitano’s original assessment of this as a “one-off.” But I agree with Terrye, whether Shahzad had a lot or a little help from the Taliban or some other group, the guy is clearly a terrorist with connections to the Mideast. Because of that, his action is not a one-off, but rather falls under the rubric of jihadist attacks against the U.S.

Dee2008 on May 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM

Del Dolemonte:

The first thing that struck me too about the AP story is that the authors don’t actually quote Petraeus at all, nor do they say when he made this “statement.”

As characterized by the Daily News both times, Petraeus’ suggestion that Shahzad seemed to have acted alone and that he was apparently a “lone wolf.” that there was no indication otherwise, would not have been particularly noteworthy early on. He was hardly going to contradict his C-i-C’s official storyline. Why were they even asking him about it — if not as an aside?

The headline, itself, avoids an explicit attribution, relying on a suspiciously convenient colon to draw the connection. While they use formal quotation marks around loan wolf in the body of the story, they use the scare quote version in the title. I’m not convinced that Petraeus actually said “loan wolf” himself at all. Such phrases often appear in quotation marks, as if to say a so-called “lone wolf.”

This looks an awful lot like flamebait lead in a story that really has nothing to do with Petraeus.

JM Hanes on May 7, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Well the Associated Press stated that Petraeus said Shahzad was acting as a “lone wolf”.

Shock the Monkey on May 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM

No, the NY Post article says that he “told the AP” that.

I’ve been trying without any success to find the actual AP interview with him. Wonder where it is? Only when we read the entire interview in context can we discover what Petraeus really said.

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2010 at 6:14 PM

JM Hanes on May 7, 2010 at 6:11 PM

See my post right after yours!

FYI in my Google “news search” I found a Wall Street Journal story that did the exact same thing-they used a Petraeus sound bite with only a few words, and said he told ot to the AP in an “interview”.

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Petraeus…lone wolf…disinformation campaign…Taliban thinks we’re not looking for his accomplices….Predator drone takes them out….

just trying to connect the dots…

gordo on May 7, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Here is an AP story that is just a bit different…My bolding…Not quite what the NYP says.
And it’s noted theis is a correction by the AP.

The Times Square bombing suspect apparently operated as a “lone wolf” who did not work with other terrorists, according to the general who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But investigators believe he had some bomb-making training in Pakistan, a second senior military official said.
Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, said in a statement Friday to The Associated Press that alleged bomber Faisal Shahzad was inspired by militants in Pakistan but didn’t necessarily have direct contact with them.
<a
href=”http://tinyurl.com/387ksth”>http://tinyurl.com/387ksth

Deanna on May 7, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Sorry about the link…try again…http://tinyurl.com/387ksth

Deanna on May 7, 2010 at 7:17 PM

So why is General Petraeus, today, announcing that Shahzad was a lone wolf? Probably for the same reasons he finds Scripture addresses on American Warrior’s ACOG’s offensive and why he deemed Israel a threat to the safety of American Servicemen, and why he felt compelled to jump into the fray of social-engineering our Armed Forces. A member of the collective has little choice but to do the will of the collective. The problem is, the collective assumes they are right not because they believe there is absolute right and wrong but just because they feel they are always right sans God and any troublesome admonishment from him in Scripture.

Is that what is expected of Generals in the United States Army now? Political commentary, social engineering, anti-Christian rhetoric hurled at a largely Christian armed force. How about re-visiting a strategy and it’s ROE that gets your wards murdered, General? How about making uncomfortable recommendations to a CIC who clearly doesn’t care about the cost of his desires for the Islamic nations of the world to American Warriors?

Where are the Chesty Pullers, Norman Swartzkoffs, John A. Lejeunes, Curtis Lemays and even Teddy Roosevelts when you need them? God help us!
- John Bernard

MB4 on May 7, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Could this guy have been an US agent who was trying to get in with the terrorists? And the car bomb was never supposed to go off. And the feds dropped the ball on purpose so he could get away but the airlines were diligent and got him instead? And he was caught by local law enforcement who knew nothing about this elaborate plot?

NAWWWWW!!! But maybe I can start a new truther or birther cult with this theory.

mechkiller_k on May 7, 2010 at 8:44 PM

I don’t know why Petraeus and the Pakistanis are on different pages.

I dont know why Gen.Petraeus is even talking about this – no disrespect here, but he looks pretty dumb making careless, premature statements like these – instead of the standard,”we are invetigating still..”

But this is what worries me – the General is not prone to make such blanket statements as he is a very prudent and cautious man.so why would he do this ?

Wierder still, the Pakis are coming forward with the jihadi suspects – while the General says that this was a lone terrorist…

there is more to this than what meets the eye.

nagee76 on May 8, 2010 at 6:32 AM

Beware Obama-Speak, a strange concoction of sophistry and Newspeak. Mostly it’s just lies.

tarpon on May 8, 2010 at 10:40 AM