Our War On Terrorism Is Going SOOOO Well…

October 3, 2007 at 8:18 am | Posted in Bush Administration, corruption, Iran, Iraq, Military, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, War, War on Terror | 16 Comments

that Pakistan, a country that has several nukes, is losing the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Um, er, uh, what are we doing in Iraq again? The same thing that Bin Laden apparently sent some of his goons into Iraq for…

Heck’v’a job, Bushie!

Oh, and instead of preparing Americans to go into Pakistan WHERE WE SHOULD BE ALREADY, Bush and Cheney are preparing Americans to go into Iran! Huh?

Does Mitt Romney Compare Barack Obama to Osama Bin Laden?

July 22, 2007 at 5:13 am | Posted in American politics, Barack Obama, Mit Romney, Mitt Romney, Osama Bin Laden | 1 Comment

You be the judge. Here is the story, and here is the image:

PS: Did you notice how that woman couldn’t even spell Momma correctly. What IS IT with conservatives and spelling!

Fighting Them In Iraq, So We Don’t Have To Fight Them Here

July 19, 2007 at 4:11 pm | Posted in Afghanistan, American politics, Iraq, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, secret combinations | 1 Comment

This says it all:

Supposed Suicide Bomb Teams Sent to US

June 18, 2007 at 6:30 pm | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, corruption, George W Bush, Iraq, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, violence, War, War on Terror | 2 Comments

from Pakistan of course. Uh, so er, just what are we doing in Iraq?

Bush Rebukes Putin, Praises Musharraf

June 1, 2007 at 11:08 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, Foreign Policy, George W Bush, neo-conservatives, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Russia, World Events | 1 Comment

Proving yet again how foolish President Bush is on foreign policy, his administration is rebuking Russia’s Putin for the slow move away from democracy and openness.

A top Russia expert at the State Department issued an unusually sharp public criticism on Thursday of Moscow’s behavior under President Vladimir V. Putin, describing the Kremlin as bullying its neighbors while silencing political opponents and suppressing individual rights at home.

The comments, approved by the White House, are the latest volley of criticism between Washington and Moscow in recent days. Although the White House said this week that President Bush would play host to Mr. Putin on July 1 at the Bush family compound in Maine, the speech is likely to add tension at a time when the broader dialogue between Washington and Moscow is already taking the most caustic tones since the collapse of communism.

“We do no one any favors, least of all the Russian people and even their government, by abstaining from speaking out when necessary,” the Russia expert, David Kramer, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, said in a speech Thursday night before the Baltimore Council on Foreign Affairs.

That’s fine and all, speaking out against totalitarian moves by the Russian president, but…well, why does the administration keep supporting and praising a non-elected military dictator in Pakistan, Mr. Musharraf, who recently sowed more chaos in his country by firing the chief justice who called for more openness in his country?

Does the Bush administration really feel that it is more beneficial to America’s interests to further push the Russians (with their thousands of nuclear warheads) further away from being an ally? Do they really see it as more beneficial to America’s interests to have another arms race with the Russians? Does the Bush administration not see that by supporting Musharraf’s clearly totalitarian, anti-democratic moves as completely undermining the scorn we heap upon the Russians? What is the point of criticizing the Russians for their anti-democratic moves while we fully support a military dictator’s anti-democratic moves? What effect do we think will come of it? Does the Bush administration really think Putin will see anything but threatening rhetoric?

Rebuking the Russians while supporting the Pakistani makes absolutely no sense. I understand the need to prop Mr. Musharraf, with all the extremists (including Bin Laden) in Pakistan’s tribal regions, but that support undermines and discredits all our other talk of democracy elsewhere. If Mr. Musharraf cannot control his country, and more importantly, help us to destroy Al-Qaida, just what purpose does our support of Mr. Musharraf give us? What is it in America’s interest that supporting him is so valuable? Let the Pakistani wolves have his head. He does not deserve our support.

Bush Declassifies Intelligence About Bin Laden On Day Monica Goodling Testifies

May 23, 2007 at 9:04 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, corruption, George W Bush, Iraq, Osama Bin Laden, Republicans, Revising History, secret combinations, violence, War on Terror | 5 Comments

Note the timing of the following two news tidbits, (one following the other, purposefully, on CNN.com)

Bush: Bin Laden Wanted Iraq As New Base

Justice Aide Who Took Fifth to Testify in Attorney Firings

Note that the intelligence Bush offers about Bin Laden comes from 2005.

President Bush on Tuesday declassified intelligence showing in 2005 Osama bin Laden planned to use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks in the United States, according to White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

Johndroe said the intelligence was declassified so the president could discuss the previously secret material on Wednesday during a commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut.

Here is what is happening today:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ former White House liaison is scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, speaking out for the first time on her role in the controversial U.S. attorney firings.

Monica Goodling, who served as Gonzales’ senior counsel, is the only key official who has not yet testified about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

Her lawyers initially kept her from testifying, saying she would cite her Fifth Amendment right to protection from self-incrimination, but she will now be granted immunity.

Unfortunately, which one will garner more evening news across the nation? Why our bogeyman, of course, Bush…er…Bin Laden. Sorry, a little slip up. I mean it is Bush who keeps trying to scare us into following his way. That’s what a bogeyman does, scare people.

Seriously, if this information came out in 2005, why did Bush feel like needing to hold on to this until now? Why not release it in 2005 to prove that his war in Iraq was a just cause? And why to the Coast Guard Academy of Connecticut? Why not to the whole nation? Why hold on to it, unless you are holding on to them to use them at politically sensitive times, like say, today, when one of your former goons testifies with immunity from prosecution?

Our Actions In Iraq, Bad For Us, Good For Al-Qaida

May 20, 2007 at 2:30 pm | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, Iraq, Military, Osama Bin Laden, violence, War, War on Terror | 1 Comment

Well, we’ve had over 3400 of our soldiers killed, tens of thousands wounded, over one hundred thousand Iraqis killed, nearly half a trillion dollars poured into Iraq, and well, guess who’s making a cash windfall in Iraq? Why none other than Al-Qaida:

A major CIA effort launched last year to hunt down Osama bin Laden has produced no significant leads, but has helped track an alarming increase in the movement of al-Qaida operatives and money into Pakistan’s tribal territories, according to senior U.S. intelligence officials.

In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said al-Qaida’s command base in Pakistan increasingly is being funded by cash from Iraq, where the terrorist network’s operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.

The influx of money has bolstered al-Qaida’s leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of al-Qaida funds, with the leadership surviving to a large extent on money from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells.

Al-Qaida’s efforts were aided, intelligence officials said, by Pakistan’s withdrawal in September of tens of thousands of troops from tribal areas along the Afghanistan border where bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, are believed to be hiding.

Little more than a year ago, al-Qaida’s core command was thought to be in a financial crunch. But U.S. officials said cash shipped from Iraq has eased those troubles.

“Iraq is a big moneymaker for them,” a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said.

Sending A Clear Message

February 27, 2007 at 8:42 am | Posted in Afghanistan, American politics, Bush Administration, Cheney, Democrats, Foreign Policy, George W Bush, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Military, neo-conservatives, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Republicans, War, War on Terror | Leave a comment

The Taliban are claiming responsibility for a suicide attack on the base where Cheney was staying. Fourteen innocent people died, and the attack was aimed at the vice president.

What a clear message was just sent by our enemies. While we go traipsing around in Iraq with no apparent coherent plan, and divert our attentions and resources from the real fight on our real enemies, the ones who have been attacking us since 1993, this enemy came within a few hundred yards of striking our vice president. This is the same vice president who claims “enormous successes” in the war on terror. This is the vice president who just warned Musharraf in Pakistan that if he doesn’t crack down on Al-Qaida, the Democrats will defund Pakistan. Right, the Democrats, not the Bush administration. The Bush administration doesn’t care if Musharraf doesn’t crack down on Al-Qaida. They’re not threatening Musharraf with any consequences. Only now that Democrats are in power, is this vice president concerned.

What’s worse, this same vice president will now redouble his claim that Nancy Pelosi is working for Al-Qaida’s best interest. Even though he told Musharraf that if Musharraf doesn’t crack down on Al-Qaida, that same Nancy Pelosi will hold him accountable. So, in Dick Cheney’s mind, Nancy Pelosi is working in Al-Qaida’s best interest while also being the most serious threat to those who don’t crack down on Al-Qaida.

Can the United States have a more ridiculously insane vice president?

Furthermore, this attack is a clear message not just to America, but to the Afghans and Pakistani who either are friends of the Taliban or the enemies. The message is, “We’ve got the resources to get close to the second most powerful man on earth. Fear us!”

What does this say about the progress of Bush’s “war on terror?” What does it say about our efforts in Iraq? What does Iraq have to do with Afghanistan and the fight against our real enemy?

Finally, what does Iran have to do with the Taliban?

Last question, are Republicans not realizing how badly their credibility is being shot? Do Republicans realize that the more they continue backing Bush and Cheney, the bigger their loss will be in 2008 and beyond?

Oh, one more thing, will the general who said that it’s not all that important to find Osama Bin Laden recant his words? This attack was probably orchestrated by him…..

And why can’t America find a John Walker Lindh to infiltrate Al-Qaida?

Quote of the Day – George W. Bush

February 19, 2007 at 11:45 am | Posted in Bush Administration, George W Bush, Osama Bin Laden | Leave a comment

Speaking of George Bush, with whom Sharon developed a very close relationship, Uri Dan recalls that Sharon’s delicacy made him reluctant to repeat what the president had told him when they discussed Osama bin Laden. Finally he relented. And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: “I will screw him in the ass!”

According to Ariel Sharon

Finally Some American Realism!

February 18, 2007 at 6:39 pm | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, conservatives, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Military, neo-conservatives, North Korea, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Republicans, Rumsfeld, Vietnam, violence, War, War on Terror, World Events | Leave a comment

This is the second time I recommend an interview on the Hugh Hewitt show, but he’s getting people on there who are unafraid to tell it how it is. This time, he has Retired General William Odom who said it like it is and smacks Mr. Hewitt’s attempts to smear him back to the stone age. I’m glad to see some smart talk finding its way again on the conservative side. It’s been a while. Perhaps someday soon conservatives will realize the poison they’ve been drinking at the well of neo-conservatism.

After the bump, I’ve got some of the better sections of the interview. Upon reading these quotes, note that you are reading the words of a man who is not afraid. Note the use of fearmongering in Mr. Hewitt’s questions. Instead of following the bait, General Odom paints the clear picture of reality. Continue Reading Finally Some American Realism!…

Why The Surge Will Fail and Worsen the Situation

January 9, 2007 at 1:54 pm | Posted in Afghanistan, American politics, Bush Administration, George W Bush, Iraq, King George, Military, neo-conservatives, Osama Bin Laden, Republicans, War, War on Terror | 64 Comments

There are two indications why Bush’s surge will fail and worsen the already horrible situation.

Bush needs 20,000 additional troops (according to Fred Kagan’s plan), but he really does not have extra troops sitting around. So what is he going to do? Withdraw them from Afghanistan of course!

“As a last-ditch effort, President Bush is expected to announce this week the dispatch of thousands of additional troops to Iraq as a stopgap measure, an order that Pentagon officials say would strain the Army and Marine Corps as they struggle to man both wars.

“Already, a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq.

“According to Army Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Tata and other senior U.S. commanders here, that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar. The official said the Taliban intend to seize Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second-largest city and the place where the group was organized in the 1990s…

“Conway said U.S. commanders understand that the Afghan war is an “economy of force” operation, a military term for a mission that is given minimal resources because it is a secondary priority, in this case behind Iraq…

In other words, the bad guys who attacked us on 9/11 are second priority to the Bush administration to a nation that did not attack us…..

As Brian Ulrich of American Footprints says:

If Vali Nasr is right that the Iraq surge is aimed at destroying Muqtada Sadr’s Mahdi Army – and I haven’t seen much supporting that beyond his post – then the United States policy will be to retreat further from the battle against the forces which attacked us on September 11 to as to stamp out the main military support of the government we helped install in Baghdad, and which also happens to be a sworn enemy of al-Qaeda.

So we let Afghanistan burn to put troops in Iraq that actually won’t be able to fix the problem because, well, here’s the second indication why this surge is going to fail. General David Patraeus, the new general overseeing Iraq, previously wrote the counterinsurgency field manual for the Army. In it he recommends at least 20 soldiers for every 1000 people. In a city the size of Baghdad, well, that’s a lot more soldiers than we have in the whole country. Read the following:

Petraeus and his co-authors discussed this strategy at great length in the Army’s counterinsurgency field manual. One point they made is that it requires a lot of manpower—at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area’s population. Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops.

Right now, the United States has about 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq (another 60,000 or so are support troops or headquarters personnel). Even an extra 20,000 would leave the force well short of the minimum required—and that’s with every soldier and Marine in Iraq moved to Baghdad. Iraqi security forces would have to make up the deficit.

Fred Kaplan continues:

But security is the prerequisite, and to achieve enduring security, the hard arithmetic indicates that Bush needs to send in a lot more troops than 20,000. The problem is, he doesn’t have them, and he won’t be able to get them for many years, under the best of circumstances. (Even if he reimposed the draft—a sure way to convert popular disenchantment with the war to rioting-in-the-streets opposition—it would take a few years to get the Selective Service System running and to mobilize, train, and equip the draftees.)

So because he doesn’t have them, Bush is forced to make a choice. Does he take soldiers away from the fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaida (and Bin Laden) or does he allow Baghdad to dive further into its civil war? What happens when you still don’t have enough troops to accomplish victory? Does that not lead not just to failure, but a worsening of the situation? We know, from Porter Goss’s testimony in Congress that insurgents are using our military presence in Iraq to recruit more jihadists. Just what do we expect to accomplish by sending in an insufficiently sized force? Further, what are we telling Afghans? Most importantly, what are we telling Al-Qaida? This president of ours, George W. Bush, finds every way possible to worsen the situation. It is time for him to go. Fire. George. W. Bush. Now!

Pakistan Helps The Taliban

December 24, 2006 at 6:57 pm | Posted in Afghanistan, American politics, Iran, King George, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, War on Terror, wmd | 2 Comments

Great article in today’s LA Times on how Pakistan is aiding and abetting the Taliban in Afghanistan. I wonder why we are not angry at Pakistan, like we are at Iran. After all, Pakistan is ruled by a dictator with nuclear weapons, and Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan. Why do we give them a free ride?

You’ve Got to Be Kidding Me!

December 11, 2006 at 3:23 pm | Posted in American politics, Congress, Democrats, Iran, Iraq, Israel, King George, Military, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Republicans, War on Terror | Leave a comment

Our government needs to use Google to gather information about Iran and their nuclear program. You’ve got to be kidding me! Meanwhile John Walker Lindh can walk right up to Osama Bin Laden and join his group, a soft white boy from NoCal. Dude!

And on a similar note, a diarist on DailyKos provides a questionnaire that should be required of all new incoming Congressmen, especially the House Intelligence Committee head. Wouldn’t you think it is important of them to know this if they are to create laws on this?

Meanwhile, in Pakistan the Taliban are creating a mini-state……

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.