This Just In: Bush Doctrine Still Dead
By Jon Perr Saturday Jul 05, 2008 12:00pm
The steady stream of bad news about Afghanistan this week served to highlight two inescapable truths regarding the conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. First, Barack Obama is right that the ongoing commitment of American forces in Iraq is limiting the United States in its pursuit of Al Qaeda along the Pakistan frontier. Second, the Bush Doctrine - with its first tenet of "no safe havens" for terrorists - is still dead.
In Washington, President Bush acknowledged that June, which saw the highest U.S. casualties of the Afghan war, was a "tough month." Bush, who is reported to have recently ordered U.S. intelligence assets and Special Forces to make a final push to capture Osama Bin Laden, then promised more soldiers and Marines for the fight. As Time rightly noted:
"We're going to increase troops by 2009," Bush said, without offering details about exactly when or how many.
The President would have done well to first consult with Admiral Michael Mullen, his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. On the very day that 2,200 U.S Marines learned their tours in Afghanistan will be extended by 30 days, Mullen admitted to reporters at the Pentagon that the United States could deploy more forces there only by drawing down from Iraq:
"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq. Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."
Unfortunately, that "reduced requirement" in Iraq doesn't appear likely to happen any time soon.As the AP reported last week, the Pentagon is preparing to rotate 30,000 troops in a move that maintain U.S. force levels in Iraq at 15 combat brigades through 2009. While General Petraeus may yet recommend further force reductions, American troop levels at 142,000 are currently slated to remain above pre-surge levels through next year.
Failing the commitment of additional forces by NATO members, the U.S. is going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul when it comes to choosing between the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. During his joint Senate testimony with General Petraeus in April, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker acknowledged to Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) that the Afghan-Pakistan border region was a higher priority than Iraq for the United States in its global fight against Al Qaeda.
Crocker's trade-off is precisely the one advocated by Barack Obama throughout the 2008 campaign. As he has insisted repeatedly, the Bush administration let Al Qaeda off the mat in 2002 and with its solitary focus on Iraq, has taken its eyes off the prize. As Obama put it just two weeks ago:
"The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11…
…We had al Qaeda and the Taliban on the run back in 2002. But then we diverted military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic resources to Iraq. And yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this April that, 'Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.' I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of the facts, and a stubborn determination to ignore the need to finish the fight in Afghanistan."
As it turns out, Obama is right, and George W. Bush and John McCain are wrong, on both counts. As Admiral Mullen readily admitted, overstretched American forces in Iraq are simply unavailable for the campaign against Bin Laden. And as a devastating account in the New York Times this week revealed, the Bush administration's diversion of assets to Iraq and its confused policy towards the Musharraf government enabled Al Qaeda to establish a safe haven in Pakistan.
Dating back to the moments after the September 11 attacks, "no safe havens" emerged as one of the three pillars of the Bush Doctrine. (The other two – preemptive war and democracy promotion – rose and fell with the invasion of Iraq and the chaos in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.) In his address to Congress on September 20, 2001, a determined President Bush declared his "no safe havens" principle even as the World Trade Center towers still smoldered in lower Manhattan:
"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
But seven years later, an Al Qaeda safe haven in the Pakistani tribal regions is precisely what the United States now encounters. As President Bush himself confessed in the wake of a July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate:
"One of the most troubling [points in the NIE] is its assessment that al Qaeda has managed to establish a safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan."
Little has changed since. As the New York Times detailed Monday, the new Bush policy of authorizing unilateral strikes against Al Qaeda leaders and the deployment of U.S. Special Forces into Pakistan remains stymied by disagreements within the administration and with the new government in Islamabad. (Ironically, John McCain attacked Barack Obama for the same aggressive posture towards Al Qaeda in Pakistan that President Bush belatedly adopted.) Despite the new-found willingness of the U.S. to act alone within Pakistan, Bush's past dependence on Musharraf and Musharraf's truce with tribal leaders sympathetic to Bin Laden and the Taliban had left Al Qaeda firmly entrenched:
"It is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world."
For Barack Obama's part, he's still right when it comes to America's unfinished business with – and the White House's diversion of resources from – Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. As for President Bush and John McCain, they're still wrong. And to paraphrase Chevy Chase from the old Saturday Night Live news sketches, the Bush Doctrine is still dead.
Login or Register to post comments.
So a person who is a complete fool and failure will suddenly turn genius?
Warmonger!
No offense to any ass-clowns, but this guy is a total ass-clown!
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07062008.html
Make Way for Field Marshall Obama
Hunkering Down in Afghanistan
By MIKE WHITNEY
"...None of the promises have been kept and none of the goals have been achieved. Besides, war isn't an instrument for positive social change; it's about killing people and blowing up things. Dolling-up military aggression as "preemption" can work for a while, but eventually the truth comes out. Democracy and modernity don't come from the barrel of a gun.
"...[M]ichael Scheuer, former CIA chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station, made this statement at a recent conference at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC: "Afghanistan is lost for the United States and its allies. To use Kipling's term, 'We are watching NATO bleed to death on the Afghan plains.'
This is such an underdiscussed dimension of the Presidential race. Obama wants to withdraw troops as quickly as possible, McCain wants to stay until we "win."
The facts seem to imply that longer occupation is simply impossible regardless of politics - there are no troops left. These TV pundits wax on and on pouring of the excruciating minutiae of Obama's statements, but can't spend three minutes talking about the inevitability of withdrawal.
Had he focused on Afghanistan instead of using 911 as an excuse to lie us into Iraq we might have won that conflict by now. Now we are loosing 2 wars thanks to BushCo and the GOP.
BOTCHED! BASTARD! BUSH!
.
Got Bin Laden?
Of course, one has to take into consideration that one can not hunt a dead duck...
.
Invading Afghanistan was NEVER about catching bin Laden - he was allowed to escape with his ISI handlers early in the conflict.
Invading Afghanistan was ALL about getting the poppies growing again.
The Taliban had wiped out virtually ALL poppy cultivation in Afghanistan.
Now opium production vastly exceeds pre-Taliban numbers. Each of the last several years have seen double-digit percentile increases. Afghanistan now produces over 92% of the poppies used in opium & heroin production.
"Skull and Bones" was founded by the Global Opium Cartel.
Connect the dots.
Northern California Dave @ 3:
I wasn't offended. ;)
“The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice."
Not everyone who died on 9-11 were American citizens. The loss of people from other countries should be recognized too.
Bush, who is reported to have recently ordered U.S. intelligence assets and Special Forces to make a final push to capture Osama Bin Laden, then promised more soldiers and Marines for the fight.
They needed new orders to do this? What were they doing up until now, lollygagging?
"This Just In: Bush Doctrine Still Dead"
Just like Franco (and recently Jesse Helms).
bush to serve out the remainder of his term leading troops in afghanistan?
let him go...we don't want him anymore.
All thinking people already knew that the “Bush Doctrine” (and all facets thereof) was DOA.
"Did you enjoy your five tours in Iraq? If you liked Iraq you will love the six tours you will do in Afghanistan (it will help you prepare for your seven in Iran).
Emmanuel Goldstein has not left the building. He has proven to be an invaluable asset on the war of terror.
MountainMan23 @ 9:
interesting theory. one would be hard pressed to show how our actions in afghanistan have not helped the opium production.
but, personally, i see oil as the causus belli (shocking, i know).
consider the following:
U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN
REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998
Mr. Maresca. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to see you again. I am John Maresca, vice president for international relations of the Unocal Corporation. Unocal, as you know, is one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely. I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy.
I would like to focus today on three issues. First, the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources. Second, the need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements to the conflicts in the region, including Afghanistan. Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.........
.....The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.
I. HATE. THIS. MAN.
whoops, here's the link:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM
Samson- @ 18:
I don't see a conflict. You have TWO sources for huge profits instead of one.
I concur with Jon.
My friends, It's been 2,484 days since Bush said he'd catch the 9/11 Conspirator Osama bin Laden? I know that we are not supposed to talk about that thing that must not be talked about here on 'Crooks and Liars'. The reason I question The War on Terror is because we no longer seem to be interested in bringing the cabal behind Nine Eleven and the U.S. Military Grade Anthrax Terrorist from Ft. Deitrick "To Justice". Our Constitution has been trashed, the Military has been broken, the Government is bankrupt, the Economy is in a depression, the Dollar has crashed. The Military Government Media LIED to start a war of conquest. Last time I checked the rule of law, that was against the law. Somehow we have turned into a nation of cowards. Land of the free, home of the brave, not anymore. There is really no point in protesting anything anymore. The Government/Media doesn't care. I've been calling Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) every week for the last SEVEN YEARS, asking about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and "Al Qaeda in Paksitan". In seven years I've never, ever, ever gotten any response.
xoites defends Constitution @ 21:
But who are the profiteers? Retorical. Certainly not you and me.
i am no fan of the taliban--to the extreme--but... isn't it thought of by many credible sources that OBL and AQ are in the "tribal areas" of pakistan? not afghanistan. if so, shouldn't this change our strategy and question our continued operations in afghanistan? the afghani strategy, from day one, was flawed and we are seeing the fall-out now (and for years now). we were never really against the taliban (and, pray tell, how is taliban intolerance different from saudi intolerance? is it just a matter of degree?) and instead of winning the hearts and minds of the poor afgani population we handed off millions of dollars to warlords to buy their favor and temporary-alliance. these warlords... are they better than the taliban?
wasn't our only reason for attacking the taliban their protection of OBL? and, if OBL is now in pakistan... what is our continued beef with the taliban, if they are no longer 'harboring terrorists'? answer that without mentioning oil, or try to. and answer that, if possible, taking into account the numerous regimes we prop up across the globe (currently and historically) that make the taliban seem no that bad.
so much trouble in the world...
(why do our 'efforts' seem to just make things worse?)
xoites defends Constitution @ 21:
good point.
Post American @ 23:
I disagree with a small part of your statement. You may be protesting to the wrong people. The people who need to hear our protests are not deaf, dumb and blind elected officials. It is the American people. The ones who can turn off the money flowing into the hands of the lying media are the people who turn on their tv's. We would do much better to educate Americans to change their behavior than wait for those promoted by the media to hold office to do so.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2236652/CIA-g...
pakistan or afghanistan
doggiebobo @ 24:
The ones who are attempting to consolidate total control of the planet, it's resources and people.
MountainMan23 @ 9:
Also, the heroin made from those poppies is grist for the never-ending "War on Drugs" and will contribute numerous souls to the "Privatized Prison Bonanza(TM)".
In 60 years we won't be looking back and remembering Bush as being an awful president.
Probably because we'll all be dead.
If they get a good medium, they might be able to have a seance for the long dead bin Laden. All the rest though, will simply be about making Bush and Cheney's cronies richer (which is what this whole mis-administration has been about all along, IMHO).
The Democrats have set themselves up for failure by letting themselves inherit an occupation in Iraq. They should have given Bush a timetable with or without a Congressional bill. They could have done it 4 years ago and said they would give Bush 4 more years to "win" the war and bring troops home. They also failed because they let the neocons define "win" which changes definition with the wind; however, it is predominantly defined in the media as less troop deaths. That is easy to accomplish if you send drones and rockets to do the killing and keep you troops out of harms way. Win needs to be defined from the Iraqi point of view since after all, didn't we go there for them? That means discussing refugees, water, housing, freedom of movement and press, healthcare...
xoites defends Constitution
Like JFK once remarked, "When Peaceful Revolution Becomes Impossible, Violent Revolution Becomes Inevitable." Not saying that we are there yet. I think Barack Obama could go a long way to lifting up our image around the world, restoring the ideals set forth in the U.S. Constitution. When I see the local Peace and Justice Movement, four old people holding up Impeach Cheney signs, I just shudder. 4 people in a city of a million people, isn't a movement. There is no peace movement. Like I said, the U.S. Military/Government/Media Lied to start a genocidal war of conquest, there is no justice, no rule of law. Everyone seems so numb. The apathy here in the homeland is insane. Not to mention a lot of Americans are just ugly, fat, and stupid.
We're going to increase our troops presence in Afghanistan by 2009?
He'll be gone.
Is he literally going to be writing up the orders whilst pickles is packing for them to leave the White house with the extra batteries she needs for her electronic play-things?
And I thought boosh didn't believe in time tables.
And I'm sure that excuse didn't work in his elementary math classes either.
xoites defends Constitution @ 16:
say sounds like you think obama is going to be another george w bush glad to see you wised up!
25 Samson
The tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan share a border in a mountainous region presumably riddled with tunnels.
That way OBL can slip between countries.
But it's similar to how Al Qaeda was in Northern Iraq where Saddam Hussein couldn't get to them due to the UN Security No-Fly zone.
It'll be easier to drag Batman out of his Batcave.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4577497.stm
it's about crude and natural gas...caspian sea part the link for pipeline
Post American @ 35:
This is not by accident. We are told constantly what is attractive all the while encouraged to eat on the run because we can't get the education we need to work normal or reasonable hours to make a living. The vast majority of Americans are too burned out by the end of the day to do anything more than veg out in front of the tube and suckle its poisoned milk.
1 - there is NO CREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE, it has been outsourced like the rest of the gubmint under boosh
2 - in four hours, a group called al-qaeda, allegedly headed by someone named Osama Bin Laden - a former CIA ASSET in AFGHANISTAN, was named as the culprit for the wtc downings. The report given to congress named 15 of 19 hijackers as Saudis. No follow-up was permitted. 24 pages with additional information on the Saudi funding of the 9/11 attacks were redacted.
2a - the above was used to attack Afghanistan though there has been no real proof of complicity, collusion or conspiracy, just "intelligence".
2b - LIES WERE PRESENTED TO THE UN AS JUSTIFICATION to execute a pre-planned invasion of Iraq. The president has actually said that he was not concerned with Bin Laden. we have recent proof that it was about oil, nothing more.
3 - all manner of legislation has been foisted on this country and almost all big-money contracting has been limited to a select very few, especially no-bid contracts, a direct violation of law and governmental policy.
4 - the president has assumed the powers of a king, including his own ,unaccountable court system and the ability to indefinitely detain anyone from anywhere on the planet at locations anywhere on the planet.
5 - no relief sources have been directed at the victims at any of the disasters which have befallen this country within the fifty states. all funding has been directed to businesses which have republicans or individuals with republican connections.
6 - the democrats in the house and senate, with few exceptions(maybe) are millionaires and have found all manner of excuses to vote with the republicans on all domestic issues and most foreign issues, obviously because their interest are the interests of millionaires and not of their constituents.
7 - the economy for the rest of us may be in shards on the ground, but the boosh crime family consortium has attached an umbilical chord to the government and will be paid, regardless of the economical conditions out of the US Treasury.
This has always been about the money. the truth was the very first casualty.
swampfox @ 37:
Pardon me for hoping.
amusing that no one asks,"Isn't 2009 the NEXT PRESIDENT'S DECISION???"
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 43:
I think it is clear to most of us that the rules may be broken.
RE: Max-Hussein-1:
"Got Bin Laden?
Of course, one has to take into consideration that one can not hunt a dead duck…"
Congratulations for being the first person I've read to post this bit of information.
Would you have any idea of WHY nobody has addressed this strong likelihood that Bin Laden has been murdered according to an offhand and very credible statement by Mme Bhuttar last October during an interview? While I have no illusion that there is truth to anything I read these days, the statement of a woman who herself is about to be assassinated, naming one of three possible assassins, should this come to pass, as "THE MAN WHO MURDERED BIN LADEN" is very credible. While there now is no doubt in my mind that Bin Laden no longer lives, there is an apparent news blackout about this fact.
For someone like myself, one with eyes that see a naked emperor, the daily substitution of a familiar comfortable story line for factual news serves to keep me doubting my version of reality. Multiply this by how many Americans and we have a troubling picture of a nation having to fight minute by minute to "GET A GRIP"! How does one "get a grip" when one has nothing factual to hold on to?
Add to this equation the best offering the Democrats could muster for the 2008 election: Barrack Obama, who at first looked like the answer to everyone's prayers, now demonstrates why he defines himself as "a mirror in which the viewer sees whatever he or she needs to see".
I can't recall any politician who was or is as contradictory as this new Democratic Messiah. At any sign of confrontation, he immediately abandons ship and throws his controversial person or idea "under the bus". At the rate he is going, there will be few ideas or people left. EVERYBODY, EVERYTHING is vulnerable. In less than one month of being the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States, Barack Obama has managed to stand for nothing.
I can't think of any person less suitable to "save America" than this man. When the strongest "truth-seeking" radar in the world cannot detect reality, one does not put a person who cannot commit to an idea or a course of action in charge.
Or, perhaps one does? I can't see where we are going. I can't even see where we have been. Maybe Barack Obama really is someone's "Messiah"? If so, he is a solution for the "Bad Guys" - the "Other Side". He's not my solution for any improvement. He will make an impossible situation worse.
Or, does "worse" for me mean "better" for whoever is in charge?
jessix @ 45:
So, You think McSame will be a better choice?
Ron @ 47:
I am begining to think he is the "straight man" in a comedy team where the last laugh will be on us.
Ron @ 47:
wheres the difference, one sellout or another , copouts alibis , shitty choices , wtf does better mean anymore ,
Could Bush institute a Draft just before leaving office? Would he want to?
I can't really think through the positives/negatives, politically speaking. On the one hand, he'd be on his way out so a wildly unpopular move like that wouldn't matter to him. Any new president is going to be hesitant to pull that move because it'd cripple them politically. Bush and the rest of Team Moron have got to realize that simple arithmetic means we're going to have to draw down from Iraq as things stand now.
I wonder.
CatAtomic @ 50:
Would Bush dare do anything wildly unpopular?
xoites defends Constitution @ 44:
apparently the next president will be boosh's third term, regardless of party.
It is not too much of a stretch to believe that we are being set up to think of an Obama victory as a victory over racism and Corporate Media control when if fact it may provide us with no substantial changes for the better.
swampfox @ 49:
SCOTUS.
Post American @ 23:
Your messages are scanned, then deleted by ATT.
THEY HAVE BUILT A CASE AGAINST YOU AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT.
Watch for the next knock at your door,
Ron @ 54:
sorry jake obama sells us out every chance he gets scotus is just another word for nothing left to lose!
Ron @ 54:
I see no evidence at this point to suggest Obama will choose a liberl appointee. He may have been given the nominees already.
xoites defends Constitution @ 53:
with Kucinich and Edwards gone, I have anticipated that possibility.
xoites defends Constitution @ 57:
and there's no such thing as a corporatist liberal.
swampfox @ 56:
Man, talk about negative. I feel sorrt for you and your ilk.
CatAtomic @ 50:
To add to your justifiable concern, it should also be pointed out that neither of the two major presidential candidates wishes to cut the bloated military budget. On the contrary, both of them, including that [alleged] agent of hope and change, wish to increase it. It would certainly appear that Obama's claim of of hope and change, taking into his account his support for the FISA telecom immuinity bill, his advocacy of faith-based initiatives, and his desire to keep close to 100,000 troops either in Iraq or the region after his phased [mot immediate] withdrawal has been finally completed, is simply rhetoric designed to appease the gullible American people.
xoites defends Constitution @ 42:
I need a pardon, too.
Ron, i am ilked by your statement.
Ron @ 60:
dont feel sorry for me jack i dont live in a fantasy world!
swampfox @ 64:
So, tell me what you are doing to change anything but whining.
Erroll @ 61:
definitely a cause for concern.
Ron @ 65:
hey im not whining , remember the truth will set you free! fire that grill up ,put a few brotts on it , pop open a slitz , its all good , even ilks love brots!
Honest to Christ, Americans are such idiots. Republicans AND Democrats. Oh well. Nine Eleven, never forget, remember?
9/11 The falling man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXnA9FjvLSU
Obama - One Voice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUUYo9o9eg
Senator Obama is not running for President of the Net Roots or The Liberal Bloggers, he is running for the President of the United States. And yes, we haven't been so divided since the last civil war, but in the end, we are all in this together. The truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? People need to get some common sense or fresh air!
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/06/27/aol-straw-poll-june-27-...
Bush is a disgusting example of nepotism, privilege, and mind control gone amok. There is no curse too low, no example outlandish enough to compare the corrupt fool leading our nation. We bought it. We keep it until November.
I wonder what lessons our military leaders will learn from our current situation, in regards to rumsfelds doctrine about fighting 2 or 3 wars at once with light mobile military forces. Obviously that assumes the no one will ever fight back when we invade them to steal their resources or to advance our political purposes.
Jeffrey Stewart @ 12:
Now, now, politics always comes first in Bushland!
CitizenX @ 71:
That was the neocon movements big mistake! Since they are ALL a bunch of draft dodging/deferment chickenshits, they logically assumed no-one else would fight back either. Their entire ideology is being brought down by a Freudian slip!
"This Just In: Bush Doctrine Still Dead"
Are you sure about that? There is still time between now and the Democratic convention for Barack Obama to embrace it as the new centerpiece of his entire campaign.
It's Me @ 74:
Barack Obama opposed this war before it even began.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8
2,484 days since Walker Bush said he'd catch Osama bin Laden uh 'Dead or Alive!' Let's Roll! USA! USA! USA!
Brian Hussein Fejer @ 75:
I hate to rain down on your parade but Barack Obama has also voted each and every time to continue to fund the occupation in Iraq, proving that actions speak far louder than words.
I think you are sort of missing the big picture. If there aren't NEO conservatives bitching about Hussein Obama wanting to retreat in defeat from the global struggle against islamofascism, uh in Iraq because he is a secret muslim agent of the Al Qaeda, the base, the toilet, then there are Neo Progressives bitching about Barack Obama voting to fund the troops in Iraq.
Barack Obama is a great American. He is running for President of the United States in America. I guess the cognitive dissonance does not discriminate. The following ad from Vets For Freedom fails to make any mention of U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan, the fact that Al Qaeda has a safe haven in Pakistan, or that they failed to defend freedom or the Constitution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiQWLKCJnVc
Gary @ 31:
OK, then what about 10 years then ?
The Oct surprise will be Bin Laden's death.
It's just a question of before the republican convention
or after.
Brian Hussein Fejer @ 75:
Your link has Obama saying in 2004 that he would not have voted for the resolution while by the end of that same year he was saying Senators who voted for that resulotion were acting on different information.
He opposed a "unilateral" war or invasion. But there is nothing in the resolution that authorized unilateral invasion or war. Quite the contrary, it was legislation specifically stating for the record that Congress was opposed to a unilateral war or invasion.
He opposed a "carte blanche to the administration for a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes" and says he wouldn't have signed the congressional resolution. But the congressional resolution was a bi-partisan demand (Biden, Hagel, Lugar) specifically designed to record Congress' opposition to and limits for Bush's stated intentions to have a "carte blanche for a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes." So, Obama would not have put on the congressional record any opposition from him to the stated intentions by the Bush administration to exercise a "carte blanche doctrine of pre-emptive strikes"?
He said he had a plan to remove the troops by March, 2008, but now says his withdrawl timeline will depend on what the generals tell him on his upcoming Iraq visit.
As I said, there is still time between now and the Democratic convention for Barack Obama to embrace The Bush Doctrine as the new centerpiece of his entire campaign.
====================================
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E0DA1430F931A15750C0A...
While Mr. Obama's stances on the war are generally of a piece, he has been more outspoken on some aspects than others. In 2002, in the weeks before and after the Senate voted on the war resolution, Mr. Obama, then a state senator, took a strong antiwar line, popular in his liberal Chicago district, and repeatedly said President Bush ''has not made his case for going into Iraq.''
When it came to the sort of hypothetical questions politicians dislike, like whether he would have voted for the resolution, Mr. Obama was more reserved. ''I think I would have agreed with our senior Senator Dick Durbin and voted nay,'' he said in November 2002. ''What I would have been concerned about was a carte blanche to the administration for a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes that I'm not sure sets a good precedent.''
[Snip. The link and a few pertinent paragraphs do the trick. The rest simply hogs bandwidth, It's Me. For further clarification, please consult the commenting policy, located below the Koufax Award, at the upper left of the page. Thank you. Site Monitor]
Brian Hussein Fejer @ 77:
Your type of thinking, or lack of, is a prime example of, as you say, cognitive dissonance. There were more casualties last month in Afghanistan than there were in Iraq, which you yourself admitted that the Vets for Freedom ad failed to mention. I suggest that you may want to go easy on the military ads, since it appears that you may been heavily influenced by watching too many Rambo and/or John Wayne movies. The ad says that they should be allowed "to stay so that they can finish the job." Would that be the job of wiping out the entire Iraqi and Afghani population?
"Barack Obama is a great American". Why, because he gives stirring speeches while "running for the president of the United States"? As I tried to point out earlier, apparently to no avail, voting to allow the occupation to continue is hardly the best way of supporting those troops, now is it? Like so many of Obama's acolytes, your emotions seem to have overruled your head.
personally i think the october surprise will be obama declares war on poverty, and his hunta will be hunting down thoes in poverty and be putting some change in thier pockets, he will allso direct fema to help them in thier new houseing relocation , all bridges wiill be painted and fresh grass bedding provided for the new poor, thank god we live in a place where some one cares! sorry heating in the winter cant be a priority but we all have to sacrifice, remember change is sometimes painfull,
If this jackass would have served in Nam, instead of doing coke in the TX Air National Guard he would have understood the futility of an occupation war. Just like John McSame understood back in 2000, 2001, 2002, 20003 and all the years before.
That's what you get America for electing a draft dodging drug addict to direct your war policy.
Please, for the love of your own country, don't elect another war mongering shit for brains.
"Barack Obama is a great American". Why, because he gives stirring speeches while "running for the president of the United States"? As I tried to point out earlier, apparently to no avail, voting to allow the occupation to continue is hardly the best way of supporting those troops, now is it? Like so many of Obama's acolytes, your emotions seem to have overruled your head."
Well the official story is that we were attacked by Osama Bin Laden on Nine Eleven. If that is the case, then I want to see Bin Laden brought to justice. If that isn't the case, then I still want justice for Nine Eleven. I would also like to see the Anthrax Terrorist Brought to justice. While we are at it, I would like to see the entire U.S. Government brought to justice for War Crimes against Iraq, as well. That isn't going to happen though, is it? There is something more to it then the stirring speech, it is the response by the American People to those stirring speeches. Remember Abe, Martin, Jack? Words Matter. Keep on sniping at Barack Obama for this and that. We are in really deep **** here in the U.S. Homeland. Freedom isn't Free. regards
bitch, bitch, bitch!
It's Me @ 80:
Bush hasn't let facts disturb his logic -- why should he begin now? If you'd like to see the current administration brought to justice for their war crimes, just visit here
http://www.funwithwarcrimes.com
It's satire, but it's a start!
Bin Laden is/was in Pakistan. And our Govt still pays them $10 mil (bil?) dollars.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD!@41 Says
..24 pages with additional information on the Saudi funding of the 9/11 attacks were redacted.
great points, but is 28 pages
Joint Congressional Report. The declassification and release in mid-2003
of the report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and
after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 also brought attention to the alleged
role of Saudi Arabia in supporting terrorism. In the 900-page report, a crucial chapter
on foreign support for the hijackers is virtually all blanked out — 28 pages in all —
because the Administration refused on national security grounds to release the
chapter in a public forum. There has been speculation about the degree to which the
deleted pages might reveal Saudi complicity in the September 11 attacks. According
to the press, persons who claim to have read the still-classified section of the report
say it covers Saudi links with individuals involved in the attacks.19
"Get used to it" the Saudis say.
"it" being high gas prices used to fund terrorists.
abarts@87 Says:
Bin Laden is/was in Pakistan. And our Govt still pays them $10 mil (bil?) dollars.
Yes.
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Bush chose to be "with the terrorists" by funding Pakistan. Pakistan gives sanctuary, funding, training, and intelligence to terrorists. AQ Khan and the Paki. Army gave nukes to N. Korea.
Other Bush Doctrine classics:
"we will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and the nations that harbor them"
'if you fund, train, or give sanctuary to a terrorist you are a terrorist'
Oh come on C&L, the problem isn't that there are too many troops in Iraq and more should be in the afghanistan/pakistan border areas- the problem IS THE ENTIRE FOREIGN POLICY which has been this way for decades! The US doesn't need to use its resources in going after Bin Laden- its a stupid cause to go after. If you change the foreign policy of supporting corrupt kings and dictators, advocating or taking part in regime change, and giving military and financial support to various middle eastern oppressive regimes(egypt, saudi arabia, israel), then "terror" would stop immediately.
Not only that but it would be much better for our economy if money wasn't wasted overseas.
How about NO MORE MILITARY INCURSIONS OVERSEAS. We were not attacked by Afghanistan or the Taliban, so how about we stop killing their people? Is the idea of refraining from killing people in the middle east too much to handle?
commander in thief @ 88:
What proof do you have that pakistan has been training/funding terrorists? You know those tribal areas in pakistan are held by people who have been there for a long time- and US policy ISN'T Going to suddenly change their way of life and force the Pakistani government to take over those tribal areas.
I hope you're not using the idea that Pakistan "possibly" trains terrorists as an excuse to throw in US troops over there. And so what if nuclear information went from Pakistan to North Korea? Why is that our godamn problem?
We can all play "arm-chair general" because its like being the weatherman; we don't have to be right. Unfortunately, it looks like that's exactly what Bush & friends have done; they played 'general'. We're all intelligent people but we've no experience in fighting wars as it were. That's why our leaders in the military go to Annapolis and West Point, etc. as well as the War College, they study the subtleties of war to insure victory and success when we have to go to war. It was disingenuous to compare Iraq or even Afghanistan to WWII since basically it took us bombing the daylights out of the principals of the Axis Powers before we reached the end of the war. We had to do this to win. We have never again fought a war to as clear-cut conclusion as we did against Germany and Japan. We've, for one reason or another (hopefully compassion), never gone and done what we did in Germany and Japan to any other nation but if we had in No. Korea and No. Vietnam, we can only speculate on the outcome.
So now we are attacked on 9/11. We have the sympathy of the world. We have actionable intelligence on the perpetrators, we have a strong virtually invincible military, we have allies ready to help us catch those perpetrators and a President who seems to be willing to go to the ends of the earth to catch them. What does he do? He lets the perps go, rejects the aid offered by allies and goes someplace else to fight, unleashing chaos, making America less safe, less prestigious in the eyes of the world and does it all on borrowed money that will have to be paid by our children and their children not to mention the devastation to families who have lost their children to the wars or have been maimed because of them. All of this based on his lies, the lies of his advisers and the manipulation of the press.
That the military hasn't revolted is testament to their integrity but I wouldn't fault them for revolting. That Nancy Pelosi took "impeachment" off the table was disgusting since one of the roles of Congress is OVERSIGHT! Here we are, poised to elect a new President who will be burdened by all of the mistakes of the current President and Administration. Our economy is in turmoil, our military can't win in Afghanistan without troops from Iraq where they can't leave..How much worse does it have to get? Oh yeah, we could go to war with Iran any minute now in spite of the NIE's declaration of no nuclear weapons development in Iran.
I started with a comment on "arm-chair generals". For my two cents, following 9/11, I would've absolutely, positively engaged the Taliban in Afghanistan and persued al-Qaeda mercilessly. The amount of ordinance dropped on Tora Bora would make the fire bombing of Dresden look like a weenie-roast. I would enlisted every country bordering Afghanistan into pulling the noose tighter and tighter. If Pakistan didn't cooperate, too bad for them! Once OBL and the other bastards were confirmed dead or in captivity, I'd have left the Middle East. No troops, nothing and if and only if the Afghans wanted help rebuilding, would it have come. This would've shown the Middle East two things:ONE, we're f-ing serious about terrorists and two, we don't wish to be occupiers which is probably the biggest thing working against us at the moment. It is certainly a major recruiting tool for anti-American militias in the Middle East. That's just my take on things. We speculated six or seven years ago that if Bush invaded Iraq and found no WMD, would he be a war criminal? Well, you decide; I have!
MountainMan23 @ 9:
Osama bin Laden was probably killed dead in October 2001 to tie up any embarrassing loose ends his living until the end of Dumya's term presented. We quit hearing from Osama right after he rather adamantly maintained in that third live interview that he had absolutely positively NOTHING to do with the premeditated murders of thousands of citizens on American soil on the 11th day of the September 2001, while NORAD, our military, and all our intelligence agencies all conveniently SLEPT on their jobs.
Twenty terrorists with box-cutters dispatched by some trust-funded irritant dwelling in a cave in Afghanistan? C'mon! Who gets paid to make this ridiculous crap up? Surely, Osama would have come up with something more believable than twenty pinheads on four underbooked flights, wielding box-cutters and screaming bomb threats to terrorize America. Real fundy terrorists don't make idle threats, as we horrifically discovered over Lockerbie Scotland. This whole War On Terror prompted ruse is a hoax I don't blame Osama for denying openly multiple times. No one wants to go down in history as being both stupidly unbelievable and unimaginably murderous but that godless pool of pyschotic pathocrats George Walker Bush, Richard Bruce Cheney, and all their PNAC signatory BFEE cronies.
Bonesman Bush and Darth Cheney of the Death Star demand loyalty and fidelity. In thrice denying that he was the patsy who "masterminded" the devastating grief Dumya is still milking for the cause of continuity of wars intended to assure him and his base control of Middle Easter Oil wealth, Osama bin Laden proved not to be the guilt-deflecting scapegoat the BFEE and the PNAC hegemons expediently needed him to be. The actors the ReThugniCons got to play bin Laden in all those October Surprise VHS accounts of Islamic terrorist theats against Amerika were doing a better job of being that synthetic threat, and all worked dirt cheap, slavishly sticking to the GOP script. DumyaCo needed an agent who was going to stick to those talking points and all the official stories to get his Oil, Poppy Fields, and other natural resources that guaranteed that his religio-fascist military industrial corporatist cronies got rich beyond their most obscenely vile imaginations. It, alas, allows us to connect the dots from the bonesmen to a Nazi dummy corporation becoming the first Manchurian Presidency in the redacted, revisionist history of a nation wherein we're all wearing Monica's navy blue dress.
Remember playing the board-game 'Risk' as a kid? Remember when your turn came and you cashed in your cards (like supplementary congressional grants), collected lots of new soldiers (your own mini surge), and then had to decide where best to put them? Remember that moment, with all those cash-in troops in your hand - giving you a sudden power advantage - the decision always came up whether to play defensivly and build up the walls, to fortify position but take some modest new ground, or, and this was always my own personal Waterloo, to raise some global hell. And I pondered...do I have enough to take that weaker player out, gain his cards (resources), cash in for more troops on the fly and keep the juggernaut going? Remember trying to do it anyway, even when you knew that you'd be toast if you failed, and also that one of your frontlines was stretched so thin that the power to actually reach the objective there was sincerely expected to come from the dice gods? Now, finally, I have a name for that understaffed war front - a "ECONOMY-OF-FORCE" Campaign. Wow, what a great term. It sure beats the way I used to see it, as just having left enough daylight for the other players to kick me in the nuts.
Login or Register to post comments.