US News
CIA chief sees 'near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq'
May 30, 2008, 6:10 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Obama gets reports on security failings in Detroit plot
- Obama vows action; al-Qaeda claims flight scare credit
- Nigerian terrorist suspect charged, Yemen ties probed
- Dutch, British airports beef up security after US airliner incident
- Moment of silence begins 7th annual commemoration of 9/11
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- 2. Whitney Houston to be buried Saturday in small family funeral
- 3. Obama, Democrats get Republican raspberries for Valentine's Day
- 4. Obama calls for quick passage of payroll tax holiday extension
- 5. Report: Director Oliver Stone's son converts to Islam
Older Talkback
page: 1
Oogunga! You place entirely too much faith in this technological terror you have constructed, General. It is insignificant compared to the fires of Islam. They or some other group with a different name will be back. In fact, other such groups still exist and still actively seek our destruction. Your intelligence magic has not brought us the heads of Osama Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri, now has it? What about those two Shia Fatboys, hmm?
Oh, and while you are about it, here is what many of our 'allies' think of us:
//www.europeanvoice.com/article/2008/05/1925/a-post-american-israel/608 95.aspx
What about Afghanistan and Pakistan? 'US and other intelligence experts believe that bin Laden is most likely hiding in remote, mountainous areas along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.' Why did we even bother to go into Afghanistan in 2001 if we were not actually on the trail of osama bin laden and al qaeda? It is a shame for American that the neocons perverted our mission after 9/11 of killing/capturing osama bin laden and al qaeda in the countries that harbor them. The neocons in their grand delusion would like to trick Americans into believing that 9/11 is all about Iraq. For some bizzare rational, after rightfully invading Afghanistan in 2001 because the extremist taliban government was harboring osama bin laden and al qaeda, we stopped at the border with Pakistan, and let the terrorists return to safe havens in Pakistan.
The promoting democracy, and nation-building crusade that replaced our true mission is a mirage. To believe that now this is our purpose, instead of dealing with the 9/11 terrorists, we have to forget that Pakistan is run by a military dictator, created the Taliban, harbors al qaeda, and osama bin laden, has lots of nuclear bombs, and shared nuclear bomb techology with their North Korean buddies. That is a lot of truth to forget about. The neocons can cheerlead all they want, but it does not
provide the victory over the 9/11 terrorists America deserves.
...but, no matter what you think, the USA has been, undeniably, free of terror, and Bush has to be credited for this. He has bucked every attempt to weaken our system, by the liberal luddites. He has taken every possible advantage of his constitutional authority to thwart the enemies, both abroad and in our own Congress.
It has been, undeniably, successful.
Has this war been properly executed? Perhaps not, but nonetheless, these successes have been produced. To simply widen the scope and declare failure because he cannot claim total, unconditional victory, flies in the face of reason. If this is the case, we cannot wait to measure the dem administration by the same metrics.
What IS interesting is that the public HAS adopted total unconditional victory as THE paradigm. This will be the real Bush legacy, as no President, from now on, will have the luxury of capitualting.
An administration who has deceived the american people and the world has lost all credibility and cannot be believed in any way, shape, or form. Even if they provide hard evidence, how do we know the evidence was not fabricated as is commonplace with cloak and dagger organizations? How do we know this? Sadly they cannot be trusted.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html
SRD
'What IS interesting is that the public HAS adopted total unconditional victory as THE paradigm. This will be the real Bush legacy, as no President, from now on, will have the luxury of capitualting.'
talk is cheap, buddy. please define 'total unconditional victory'.
Is it releasing the gitmo prisoners, [worse of the worse] without making any charges or convictions? Is is going after the al qaeda in Pakistan? Is it killing every muslim in the world? tell us what you mean.
'Why did we even bother to go into Afghanistan in 2001 if we were not actually on the trail of osama bin laden and al qaeda?'
3 main reasons we went in:
1. disrupt/destroy AQ;
2. punish Talib;
3. set example that regimes supporting terror groups will pay high price.
Why is that so tough to grasp?
'The neocons in their grand delusion would like to trick Americans into believing that 9/11 is all about Iraq.'
Who ever said 9/11 was all about Iraq? That is utter nonsense. They are linked strategically on several levels, but that would require the capacity for independent thought to grasp.
1. Rogue dictator disregarding UN ceasefire requirements regarding wmd (among other things), with proven history of use against civilians and support for terror groups is a bad example to let stand at any time, but especially after 9/11.
Is that too complex for you?
2. His overthrow would send strong message to other rogue dictators that there behavior will not be tolerated and they will lose power and their lives.
Gosh there are even examples - khadaffi soon fessed up and turned over wmd info/programs which exposed clandestine proliferation sources.
3. Establishment and worldwide support of democracy in heart of ME is a long term process, but it would go a long way to providing alternative to radical islam (and therefore reduce/isolate terrorists).
WMD proliferation to nation states and then to economically or ideologically driven rogue groups is inevitable. Slowing that process is in everyones interest.
The administrations greatest miscalculation was that the free world - as well as the Dem oopposition in US, was more interested is hobbling the US adminsitration than in supporting a democratic Iraq.
'we stopped at the border with Pakistan...'
As opposed to invading Pakistan? This argument is made from many angles - all of them ignorant. The notion that 'the military dictator in Pakistan' somehow supports AQ is just stupid. The regions of Pakistan where AQ/Talib are harbored is outside the control of the central government. Musharaff has lost more troops fighting in that region than US/coalition has lost in Iraq/Afghanistan combined.
What IS interesting is that the public HAS adopted total unconditional victory as THE paradigm. This will be the real Bush legacy, as no President, from now on, will have the luxury of capitualting.'
talk is cheap, buddy. please define 'total unconditional victory'.
sp4 - total...every nasty towelhead, without a single casualty...that IS total victory as defined by libnazi capitulators, right?
Is it releasing the gitmo prisoners, [worse of the worse] without making any charges or convictions?
sp4 - no, they are POW's, so they do not have the same rights as citizens
Is is going after the al qaeda in Pakistan? Is it killing every muslim in the world? tell us what you mean.
sp4 - that was the point, professor: in your gossamer world, where everything exists in simplistic totallity, it looks like the next President is going to get the pleasure of living up to what has been defined for Mr. Bush!
By the way, how do you know he's in Pakistan....?
Good luck....
we did temporarily disrupt al qaeda in Afghanistan. then we stalled, didn't go after them in Pakistan. that is simple to understand. what is difficult to grasp is why we did not chase obl and al quaeda right into Pakistan. If there was no logic to going after al qaeda in Pakistan in 2001, than there was no logic to going after al qaeda in Iraq in 2003, especially considering that they were not there then. More logical to bring democracy and women's rights to the fundamentalist islamic theocracy in saudi arabia.
you and sp4 would make good choices for a new neoconartist apologist/ cheerleader/press secretary for the next few months. try spinning your tricycle training wheels some more, because your neocon political spin doesn't work for most people any more.
'then we stalled, didn't go after them in Pakistan. '
You have really latched on to that as if it were an intelligent idea. No matter how many times it is explained to you you still don't seem to understand that:
1) The USA has special forces operating in Pakistan.
2) A full scale invasion of Pakistan would be NOT be in our internists.
' It is insignificant compared to the fires of Islam. '
Found another problem you want to capitulate to? Well Obama will get right on that for you.
'Your intelligence magic has not brought us the heads of Osama Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri, now has it? What about those two Shia Fatboys, hmm?'
They are Sunni... And turning Iraq over to them isn't going to bring their heads to us.
give it to me again, buddy. after 9/11, why was it in our interest for a full scale invasion of Iraq, but not Pakistan, or even saudi arabia? And now, are we really going after the 9/11 terrorists in the countries that harbor them, or are we too pre-occupied with 'nation-building'? What is this neocon pre-occupation with Iraq? This reminds me of the scout leader who took his troop to climb to the highest peak. They didn't need no maps or compass because he believed that he knew the way. They climbed and climbed, and after reaching the top of a ridge, looked across and realized that the peak they were seeking was several miles away.
...the argument above was that, never mind the success in front of them, that liberals cried as a failure (and are now wrong) oh no...they want to seek ANOTHER goal, that we are told, SHOULD, have been the goal begin with, but that liberals NEVER articulated to begin with.
No, they voted for war in Iraq, a fact they are trying like hell to make us forget. They want us to believe dumb ol GW jes fooled thim reel bad, rather than facing the fact that:
They did it to get Bush to rid of Saddam for them, and them pillory him for it later.
wow...what a surprise...the liberal moving target...can't wait to apply it to President Barak...
Nonetheless, we've defeated this enemy, and on someone else's soil, regardless of the state of the country they are in. Now, MacCain challenges barak to, finally go there and see what he can see with his own eyes. Then again, why would we think John McCain is afraid of anything...?
Besides, why does anyone think Osama is in Pakistan...or Afghanistan...? Why is it so imperitive to get to him?
if the CIA chief is smoking from the same bong as SP.
'didn't go after them in Pakistan.'
We have people in Pakistan now. We have conducted dozens of operations and killed hundreds of AQ/Talib operatives. Musharraf has deployed tens of thousands of troops and suffered thousands of casualties fighting against AQ/Talib and their supporters.
Are you suggesting that the US should have conducted a full scale invasion?
'If there was no logic to going after al qaeda in Pakistan in 2001, than there was no logic to going after al qaeda in Iraq in 2003'
Logic isn't your strength? Just kidding. Seriously, Saddam was our enemy and his overthrow was supported by Congress under Clinton. Do I really need to restate the litany of his real and perceived offenses? You cannot compile a comperable list of offenses against Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Feel free to try.
Please tell me what the logic is for supporting your country's enemies? Could it be that increased casualties and potential defeat could secure advantages for your political party?
And I bet the CIA Chief won't say anything about Osamina bin Laden when he was working for them (P.A.K.) I bet you don't remember the cover and the super write up and numerous photos in the US 'TIME' magazine with the words 'freedom fighter' when he was being supplied by CIA and USA arnaments to fight the Russians in Afghanistan..Personally, I would cringe in shame!.Try and get The old TIME edition it's a hoot! (I sold mine to a collector....goood money too!)
'Saddam was our enemy'
But first he was your friend. You supplied him with a lot of weapons and technology as your surrogate fighter against Iran. Remember? Or is your memory as selective and as bad as the drug addicted SP4? What turned him into an enemy? He refused to kiss the US ass any more. You turkeys deserve and have earned every last plane crash into a building that's coming at you. Plus whatever else they can think of. Finally you international criminals are getting some back. Wear it well. It looks good on you.
when bush leaves office maybe sp4 will go with him to crawford where they can be butthole buddys to the end.
Hayden !! TWO years in the job - he really has still got his diapers on.
These CIA imbeciles have polluted the name of America ever since that gigantic jerk and national embarrassment Hoover made a fool of himself and everybody else.
The CIA could not even tell you the weather when looking out of the window without getting it wrong. They have an endless stream of the most incredible cock-ups and misinformation that the human brain can possibly come up with. Not to mention being responsible for thousands of American deaths.
If you want the biggest balls-up on earth, then give the job to the CIA, their devotion to absolutely screwing things up is inexhaustible.
OH BOY !! no, please no, don`t mention that Iranian Hostage episode.
But I will - the CIA and all those clever tough special operations (don`t laugh) clowns, planned this masterpiece of utter devastation in great detail. All very secret and with Delta-Force and the other boy scouts all involved.
Apart from destroying half the American air force`s C-130`s and helicopters and killing about 8-10 American gladiators, all in a superbly executed ram-em-all manner, the whole mission was the biggest military cock-up the world has ever laughed at. Go-it guys, Gung-ho and all that jazz.
BUT that wonderful epic of recent times, where the CIA and their FBI crazy-gang buddies actually knew all about 19 Muslim crackpots, then let them calmly train to fly aeroplanes in an AMERICAN flying school.
Here is the best bit - THEN the mad mullahs were allowed to hijack 4 huge American passenger planes full of nice people, armed only with penknives.
AND THEN to give new York a massive makeover by destroying the WTC towers, killing nearly 3,000 people and injuring thousands more. AND even made a great dent in the Pentagon to finish their act. Well done CIA and FBI.
If there is a very large crap hole somewhere in those nasty desert badlands, then collect up all CIA jerk-offs with their little toys and comics and DUMP them in it !
AL-QAEDA finished !! America and the alliance have`nt got the balls to do it and certainly not the firepower. I should think Osama is peeing himself in his nightshirt at this jerk Hayden`s fit of insane fantasy.
'And I bet the CIA Chief won't say anything about Osamina bin Laden when he was working for them (P.A.K.) '
I think it is fair to say at this point that you are a seething Indian who is angry that the USA didn't take care of the problem for you. If you want Pakistan invaded be my guest. Don't expect Americans to die for your interests though. If India is to be taken seriously as a superpower it is going to have to start pitching in instead of whining from the sidelines.
'I bet you don't remember the cover and the super write up and numerous photos in the US 'TIME' magazine with the words 'freedom fighter''
Nope, Don't remember that.
'Try and get The old TIME edition it's a hoot!'
Betcha, since it doesn't exist.
'Nope, Don't remember that.'
If you put down the bong, your memory would return.
'If you put down the bong, your memory would return.'
So provide some link to the 'Osama Bin Laden: freedom fighter' issue of Time magazine..
Or shut the hell up.
What in the hell IS a bong, anyway?
who are you kidding?
RE:'Found another problem you want to capitulate to? Well Obama will get right on that for you.'
I'm sure he will. Then after we fix our own problems, we can get back to doing this job right.
RE:'They are Sunni... And turning Iraq over to them isn't going to bring their heads to us.'
So, turning Iraq over to the Shia is the answer, then? You still don't see what has happened and what is still happening, do you, Bubba?
Or shut the hell up.
Take a pill and chill, a-hole. The post was about osama not (N)obama. Your brain is fried. Too much crack in the pipe, boy? Why don't you grow a couple of stones and try to shut me up, you little girly man.
What country-
Created the extremist Taliban as a surrogate army to take over Afghanistan?
Provided, and still provides al qaeda terrorists safe haven?
Is the country US intelligence experts think harbors osama bin laden?
Allows islamic extremists to run large sections of the country?
Allows a huge narco-terrorist network to thrive within its borders?
Is governed by a military dictator who has thwarted democracy for years?
Has real, not imaginary WMD in the form of nuclear bombs?
Provided nuclear bomb technology to North Korea?
Sorry, idiot charles. This accurately describes Pakistan, not your
neocon scapegoat country Iraq.
i seem to have stirred up a hornets nest here.......OsamaA having worked for the CIA? I suggest SEARCH on any WWWW
lol
I would suggest .......LOL
'The ability to kill and capture key members of al-Qaeda continues, and keeps them off balance - even in their best safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border,' Hayden said. US and other intelligence experts believe that bin Laden is most likely hiding in remote, mountainous areas along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
charles are you so wasted that you did not even read the article that you post comments about?
'I'm sure he will. Then after we fix our own problems, we can get back to doing this job right. '
So surrendering to islamism will lead to us 'fixing our own problems'... Makes perfect sense.
'So, turning Iraq over to the Shia is the answer, then?'
Turning it over to either Iran or al qaeda is certainly not the answer, which is what your candidate of choice has pledged to do.
'You still don't see what has happened and what is still happening, do you, Bubba?'
(Gee, nothing Ironic about you calling me 'bubba' or anything... )
I see it all too well unfortunately.
'Take a pill and chill, a-hole. '
Still not seeing any link there 'A-hole'.
'The post was about osama not (N)obama.'
The only difference between Obama and Osama is a little bs.
' Why don't you grow a couple of stones and try to shut me up, you little girly man.'
Going to invite me to fight and post someone address again you crazy, useless b*tch?
Watch this view, you neocon toe-tapper: (_*_)
Showing your balloon knot to anonymous men again... classy as always.
Who is this idiot kidding? He had at the time also said that he thought Osama was dead. STUPID!
CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Osama bin Laden Claims have been made that the American government, and in particular the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), are responsible for enabling 'Afghan Arabs,' and in particular Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda.
Following the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Army, the United States gave several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Soviet Army and Afghan Marxist government in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen (fighters of jihad or 'holy warriors') were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as 'Afghan Arabs'. The most famous of the Afghan Arabs was Osama bin Laden, known at the time as a wealthy and pious Saudi who provided his own money and helped raise millions from other wealthy Gulf Arabs.
Overall, the U.S. government looked favorably on the Arab recruitment drives. ... Some of the most ardent cold warriors at [CIA headquarters at] Langley thought this program should be formally endorsed and extended. ... [T]he CIA 'examined ways to increase their participation, perhaps in the form of some sort of international brigade' ... Robert Gates [then-head of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence] recalled. ... At the [CIA's] Islamabad station [station chief] Milt Bearden felt that bin Laden himself 'actually did some very good things' ....[1]
As the war neared its end, bin Laden organized the al-Qaeda organization to carry on armed jihad in other venues, primarily against the United States, the country that had helped fund the mujahideen against the Soviets.
This is the main part but all the details are all here.With a bit of perseverence (I suggest you follow it up SP4. especially the bit about ' to support the mujahideen,' and also the place where several of those 'connected' with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing were 'recruited.)'
Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, believed the CIA had provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
In conversation with former British Defence Secretary Michael Portillo, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American.[8] This view is corroborated by Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, who when questioned by CNN's Larry King, divulged that Osama bin Laden was appreciative of his personal efforts in bringing the United States to Afghanistan to help him fight the Soviets.
there was 'The World at War' (A UK BBC programm) CIA assistance to Osama extended as far as CIA's Islamabad station chief, Milt Bearden shaking his hand.
They do come out of the woodwork.
When I've been saying for the past 3 years that AQI is a minor factor, numerically, in terms of the problems facing Iraq, I got the usual dum-dum cat-calls.
In light of McClellan's book, the public takes this whole thing as another Admin. hype. Every announcement, including those from Petraeus, is full of caveats and what-ifs. Why? Because now the Iraqi Army has to HOLD whatever gains were made; and they will face the same problems as we do in Afghanistan today, without a STRONG and UNITED central government to lead the country.
Al-Sadr has proven that he holds the power to stop or start uprisings amongst his own Shia followers. Iran, in turn, can pull or loosen the reins on him, as suits their purpose. The provincial elections in November (assuming they're held on time) will be the benchmark, since al-Sadr presents a threat to al-Maliki's backers, as well as to the Kurds and the Sunni. The Sunni are still trying to regain ground lost since Saddam's overthrow ruined their situation, and the CLC arrangement where we paid some of them $100 a month to battle al Qaeda will wind down - since according to the Admin., al Qaeda is less of a threat.
How's THAT for a reason for the current statements?
Al Qaeda Iraq was a ragtag bunch to begin with, taking the opportunity of the power vacuum Bush created by dislodging Saddam, and putting nothing in his place. They've tied the entire U.S. military up for going on 6 years, and cost the U.S. a fortune in dollars, lives, and injuries. They're active in many parts of the world, since our continued presence in Iraq continues to anger the fanatics. Afghanistan, the original problem, is now barely mentioned, despite the enormous continuing Taliban influence. Political problems continue in Pakistan, home of the al Qaeda leadership, with their gov't. again cutting deals leaving the Waziristan radicals intact.
The final story cannot be told until U.S. troops draw down, and the Iraqi Army gets to plan their own missions, and to provide their own security and logistics. Even when our troop count finally drops (and 140,000 is STILL counting about 10,000 increased by the 'surge'), we'll continue the Predator overflights which are controlled right here in the U.S., as the view from the UAV's is how we manage to pinpoint the enemy. Along with that goes the support and intel from locals who rightfully see al Qaeda as a bigger problem than OUR presence is, and therefore realize that their own Army depends on our being there.
This bragadoccio can backfire just as 'mission accomplished' did, without enough U.S. troops in position to back up the still corrupt leadership of the Army, which is still divided along sectarian lines. The talk of steep drawdowns in any short timeframe is nonsense, as we could not get the personnel and millions upon millions of tons of equipment out; and we cannot leave it behind for some future enemy.
The choice is a never-ending expensive mess under McCain; or a start to some diplomacy to include the Arab neighbors, led by a President who would actually be respected in the region. Bush is a lame duck, and no one cares anymore what he says, or does.
McClellan's book, which the White House had a copy of 30 days ahead of publication in manuscript form for approval, indicates another in the unending series of lies coming from the Admin., when they claim they had no idea what was coming out. Just as they had no idea what would happen in Iraq, despite Cheney's own predictions in 1994.
....Now that is really FUNNY...LOL
'The choice is a never-ending expensive mess under McCain; or a start to some diplomacy to include the Arab neighbors, led by a President who would actually be respected in the region. '
No one knows yet who the next President will be, so how can we be assured they will be respected????
How has the next president, regardless of who wins, earned any of these peoples respect, yet?
Why would you wish to earn the respect of some of these leaders, or their real masters at all?
Is it that they will LIKE the new president, or actually RESPECT them?
The other choice is to pull out and cede the region. Let'sdlook a the last time we did this AFTER we won all the battles!:
Cambodia - 2 million(?) dead...
S. Vietnam - thousands more sent to gulags or 'education camps', where they died, ethnic cleansing of mountain tribes, 120,000 'guest' workers sent to build Trans-Siberian pipeline, 10 year insurgency-war with Cambodia.
Somalia - Clinton ran like a bitch...ehile Bin Laden watched us go
How's THAT one turning out???
RE:'So surrendering to islamism will lead to us 'fixing our own problems'... Makes perfect sense.'
Can you think of a better whip?
RE:'Turning it over to either Iran or al qaeda is certainly not the answer, which is what your candidate of choice has pledged to do.'
So while are NOT turning Iraq over to Al Qaeda, we ARE turning it over to the Shiites. We are also turning Syria and Lebanon over to the Shiites. This is a good answer?
RE:'(Gee, nothing Ironic about you calling me 'bubba' or anything... )'
Down here in the South, 'Bubba' is serves as a term of endearment, or as a substitute name when you don't have a handle for someone. Ironic? Only if you accept the ooglia perpetrated by our concupiscent news media.
RE:'I see it all too well unfortunately.'
Okay, so explain to me what it is that you see. If we elect Senator McCain, he is going to be working with a Democrat Majority in both the US House and Senate. How is HE going to prevent this disaster? All he is going to be is a drogue chute about the size of hankie. Plus, while he is President, he is going to go along with the Democrats on their domestic agenda. Why? Because making deals with them is the ONLY way he will get what he wants in the Middle East. Worse, it was Senator McCain who was and is the chief perpetrator of this disaster by co-sponsoring the McCain-Feingold Act. He can't think far enough ahead on any one thing to do a good job and he certainly shows no ability to think more than one thing through in advance.
I've been reading his stuff and I've been listening to what he says and I have been watching what he does and he shows no talent whatsoever for a job in the Administrative Branch. Flag rank material he ain't.
..but he will still be better than the other two choices, soon to be one. These are the cards we havew to play.
RE:'...but he will still be better than the other two choices, soon to be one. These are the cards we have to play.'
I wish I could agree, but I can't. All we will accomplish by electing John McCain is to stamp 'REPUBLICAN' on the label of a DEMOCRAT disaster. Electing John McCain is like using a hankie for a sea anchor on the Titanic.
'But first he was your friend. You supplied him with a lot of weapons and technology as your surrogate fighter against Iran. Remember?'
That is laughable. What exactly is your point? Saddam was hardly a friend. We did support him against an overt enemy (Revolutionary Iran).
I'm not here to give you a history lesson you twit, but there are plenty of examples in history where the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
Ever heard of Stalin?
'What country-
...
Provided, and still provides al qaeda terrorists safe haven?'
You are just flat out wrong. Pakistan is not providing 'safe haven'. Waziristan and other autonomous tribal areas are only nominally under the control of the central government. In efforts to assert control, the central government has lost more troops than US in Iraq/Afghan. I already stated this quite clearly. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
In any case, what on earth are you actually proposing? Do you propose we invade Pakistan? Or are you just mentally ill and actually have nothing constructive to add here?
'Is the country US intelligence experts think harbors osama bin laden?
Allows islamic extremists to run large sections of the country?
Allows a huge narco-terrorist network to thrive within its borders?
Is governed by a military dictator who has thwarted democracy for years?
Has real, not imaginary WMD in the form of nuclear bombs?
Provided nuclear bomb technology to North Korea?'
I hope your little head doesn't pop its so gosh darn full of sizzling 'knowledge.'
Noharr..you are, to some degree, correct. Nonetheless, there is no way MCCain is going to change the whole complexion of the USA's projection like the others would. It's even doubtful the others will, either. As we speak, Big energy, Insurance and others are feeding the dem machine. After all, why bet on one side, when you can feed them both?
Bush, for all of his shortcomings, real or imagined, has, correctly, projected our power to the enemies turf, to the degree possible. By doing so, he has kept terror off the continent, and this is the new standard for success. No matter who gets in, they will have to maintain this standard.
In an age where no one can seem to define success, only because they do not wish to be held to their own standards later, Bush and even Hillary, even if for the worst of reasons, stepped up.
That, not some tombe from Scotty McClellan, will be the legacy. Like Ralph Nader just got done sayng in the WSJ, not even Obama is going to buck anti-terror, Nafta or WTO. The only thing they can do is mouth as if they will. After all, the money is coming to him now...
This being the case, why NOT vote for McCain?
RE:' Noharr..you are, to some degree, correct.'
Nope, I'm dead on target and I KNOW it.
RE:'Nonetheless, there is no way MCCain is going to change the whole complexion of the USA's projection like the others would.'
He already has, SP4. He engineered this nightmare.
RE:'It's even doubtful the others will, either. As we speak, Big energy, Insurance and others are feeding the dem machine. After all, why bet on one side, when you can feed them both?'
The 'Money' is giving John McCain next to nothing in real terms. I wonder why that is? I can tell you. They are running to the Democrats in abject terror. They can see what is coming. They are doing everything they can soften up the Democrats in advance. Why? Because of McCain-Feingold, that's why.
RE:'Bush, for all of his shortcomings, real or imagined, has, correctly, projected our power to the enemies turf, to the degree possible.'
No, not to the degree possible or this war would have been over with when he landed on that aircraft carrier. He did TRY to take the battle to the enemy, I'll give him that much credit.
rE:'By doing so, he has kept terror off the continent, and this is the new standard for success. No matter who gets in, they will have to maintain this standard.'
It has been kept off the continent thanks in large part to blind luck. As slow as the Musims have been on the uptake, they will hit us again sooner or later.
RE:'In an age where no one can seem to define success, only because they do not wish to be held to their own standards later, Bush and even Hillary, even if for the worst of reasons, stepped up.'
I think you are correct on this point.
RE:'This being the case, why NOT vote for McCain?'
Because he is abusing your loyalty and mine. Because he has put his political ambitions ahead of the welfare of this nation. Because he is a leftist and a collectivist at heart. Because he does NOT deserve your vote or mine.
On the other hand, the Democrats DESERVE Barak Obama.
And another thing! Have you noticed how the Republicans in the Congress and Senate have been holding forth against the Socialist ooglia being championed by the Democrats? They aren't, are they. They have started siding with the Democrats against the Bushbaby who was never a principled believer in Capitalism. How do you suppose what few of them remain after this election cycle will behave under a McCain Administration? You don't have to do much thinking to infer an answer to that question, do you? They, will, if they manage to do anything but behave as ghosts, be even more spineless than they have been in the last few weeks.
Obama et tal will shut this country down fast. It will be up to us to reboot it and there will be a majority on our side after four years of Democrat madness.
Pity, they are not all as good as this on M&C.
I bet you stared at it for hours. You even 'saved as' and put it up as your desktop background.
On John McCain:
//www.newsweek.com/id/139439
'Can you think of a better whip?'
Why? It is the case.
'So while are NOT turning Iraq over to Al Qaeda, we ARE turning it over to the Shiites. '
Well, no, we are turning it over to an ethnically mixed government.
'We are also turning Syria and Lebanon over to the Shiites. This is a good answer? '
No, will Obama do better? He has pledged to talk to the mullahs in Iran yet he wont talk to American troops in Iraq.
'Okay, so explain to me what it is that you see.'
What I see is as our main threats to national sovereignty is the the threat to the USA from islamism, our national debt which is getting to the point where it can no longer be justified as a percentage of GDP, (It is getting to the point where we are BROKE) Those are the 2 existential threats. Nuclear proliferation, the poisoning of our educational system by self appointed social engineers, unrestricted immigration, the wholesale abandonment of our manufacturing base at the alter of 'free trade', etc..
On the main threats McCain has demonstrated that he has a clear understanding of the problem and Obama has demonstrated that he knows enough to tell people what they want to hear; namely that if we just focus our attention away from the issues, ignore what has been a fundamental aspect of the 'American mission' and allow ourselves to become even more self possessed all the badness will go away.
On the second tier threats McCain is more wobbly. What does that mean? It means that he is STILL got a better understanding and plan then Obama who still relies on the whole: 'allow ourselves to become even more self possessed all the badness will go away' method of addressing the situation.
'Plus, while he is President, he is going to go along with the Democrats on their domestic agenda. '
No, no he won't. (There is that brain window and crystal ball that you have... )
Look, lets cut to the chase here. I am not going to chase my tail all day trying to persuade you that the USA is something that is worth not giving up on which is exactly what you advocate. It is simply unthinkable and I will fight you and everyone else if necessary every step of the way on it.
You despise McCain because he “may compromise” so you are going to vote for the very things that he may compromise with? As you have stated, the best interests of the USA are not what you are concerned about. You want 'collapse.' You want the whole thing to “blow up” in order to “reboot” so you can have your “underground true capitalistic economy” which is why you voted for Obama. You are living in a fantasy world.
If you can’t see the complete stupidity of that “plan” there isn’t much point in trying to persuade you on anything, bubba.
Big energy, Insurance and others are feeding the dem machine.
Yup, sure. Halliburton is really financing the Dems. Come off it EssPee. Pull your head out of your anal orifice and breathe some oxygen for a change. Those bowel gasses you've been inhaling are corrosive to brain cells.
RE:'Yup, sure. Halliburton is really financing the Dems. Come off it EssPee. Pull your head out of your anal orifice and breathe some oxygen for a change. Those bowel gasses you've been inhaling are corrosive to brain cells.'
SP4's right on this one. Power attracts money. The Corporations are now engaged in defensive spending. Power always attracts money and the Democrats appear to be the rising power.
'Yup, sure. Halliburton is really financing the Dem'
So Halliburton is financing McCain? Nope...
So, in effect, what you are saying is the rats are deserting the sinking ship. If that is the case, then why doesn't EssPee get on the bandwagon as well, instead of the bong-wagon? Why doesn't the all-seeing, all-knowing EssPee side with the winners instead of that ratpack of losers in the Whitewhorehouse? Because he's a drug addicted loser. If that useless Windows ServicePack4 really wanted to be honest, and you as well, he would admit that Craperations like Hell-iburton support BOTH sides. That way they win, no matter who wins the Presiduncy. Governments have become the pet dog of the power hungry money-men. So don't go saying, with inuendo, that they support the Dems. They support everybody in order to support themslves.
RE:'Well, no, we are turning it over to an ethnically mixed government.'
I agree that we are trying to do that, but isn't happening. We are going to have to stay in Iraq for at least as long as we have stayed in Japan and Korea, possibly longer. Senator McCain is right about this one.
RE:'No, will Obama do better? He has pledged to talk to the mullahs in Iran yet he wont talk to American troops in Iraq.'
Of course he won't! I am counting on him indulging in that kind of rank stupidity in the future. People will start to despise him and rightly so.
RE:'What I see is as our main threats to national sovereignty is the the threat to the USA from islamism, our national debt which is getting to the point where it can no longer be justified as a percentage of GDP, (It is getting to the point where we are BROKE) Those are the 2 existential threats. Nuclear proliferation, the poisoning of our educational system by self appointed social engineers, unrestricted immigration, the wholesale abandonment of our manufacturing base at the alter of 'free trade', etc..'
I see Islam as our second greatest threat, not the first most. Our worst problems, as ever, are right here at home. Yes, the National Debt is a severe problem, especially when you look at who owns most of it. Nuclear proliferation is indeed a major problem, but I have yet to hear an American politician from either party voice a clear strategy to address that particular problem. All the rest of you list are problems internal to the United States and I see these as the far worst threats. Worse, I do not have reason to think that Senator McCain will help us deal with those kinds of problems. The evidence I have in front of me says that he will do the exact opposite.
RE:'On the main threats McCain has demonstrated that he has a clear understanding of the problem ... all the badness will go away.'
I readily agree that Senator McCain has a better grasp of the external threats than Senator Obama (Senator Obama's grasp being all but nonexistent), but then I do not see those as our greatest danger--at least not to the nation as a whole.
New York City, Houston and Los Angeles are at very real risk, with New York City being at greater risk of physical destruction than just about any other place in the US. That risk will not diminish no matter who sits in the White House for the next four years.
But what is the real answer to these external threats? While it will certainly WILL require additional military action, the real key to the problem is cutting off the flow of American money to those who want us dead or subjugated. If Senator McCain understands this, he has given no sign of it. He has been backing the Democrats efforts to prevent drilling in the US. Even worse, he agrees with Tonny from Belgium and the Democrats on 'Global Warming'.
//video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-3622178907338956297&hl=en' type='application/x-shockwave-flash
RE:'No, no he won't. (There is that brain window and crystal ball that you have...'
My 'crystal ball' is the same one everyone else, including you, uses. I infer what his future actions are likely to be by judging what he has done in the past. How can he carry on a necessarily aggressive foreign policy with only the Democrats and the Spineless Goopers in the Legislatures of the United States? The only answer I can arrive at is a very ugly one. He will give them nearly everything they want in order to tackle what he and you see as the primary threat to this country. But it does us little good to win wars abroad while becoming little or no different from our enemies.
RE:'Look, lets cut to the chase here. I am not going to chase my tail all day trying to persuade you that the USA is something that is worth not giving up on which is exactly what you advocate. It is simply unthinkable and I will fight you and everyone else if necessary every step of the way on it.'
I have bad news for you. First, I have NOT given up on the United States. You and I have a difference of opinion on the best method of defending Her. Second, you most certainly will keep chasing your tail, because I am going go right on criticizing Senator McCain in public. You, being what I believe to be a genuine patriot, will keep right on arguing with me. What other choice do you have? It's all part of that doing something more than pulling the lever in voting booth business, isn't it? And you, have decided that I am insane and that what I am advocating is insanity. You cannot change my mind, only Senator McCain might do that, but you may well persuade a great many others that I am wrong. I do not believe for one second that you would roll over in this kind of struggle.
Bring it on, Bubba. You and I are locked in a battle to windward.
RE:'You despise McCain because he “may compromise” so you are going to vote for the very things that he may compromise with?'
This is at least half-true. I AM going to vote for the very things I despise. On the other hand, I have no reason to believe that Senator McCain will do anything different from what he has done in the past and that has often been him 'compromising' and UNDERCUTTING the positions of his own party, often to the great political benefit of the Democrats.
RE:'As you have stated, the best interests of the USA are not what you are concerned about. You want 'collapse.''
This is something of an erroneous characterization of my goal. My goal is nothing less than the total destruction of the Democrat Party. I'll settle for seventy-percent destruction of it and I am of the firm opinion that Senator Obama is the perfect bomb.
RE:'You want the whole thing to “blow up” in order to “reboot” so you can have your “underground true capitalistic economy” which is why you voted for Obama.'
No, an underground economy and its consequences are what I am willing to risk in an attempt to get rid of these people before we get that kind of thing jammed down our throats. Think about it. If we maintain our present course, this is exactly what we are going to get in twelve or so years. Large parts of Texas are now little different from Mexico and the same is true of Southern California.
RE:'If you can’t see the complete stupidity of that “plan” there isn’t much point in trying to persuade you on anything, Bubba.'
Again, you are certainly welcome to your assessment. I will not complain about it. On the other hand, I will ask you a question. What will become of the GOP under Senator McCain's leadership?
You don't really think these guys only give to ONE party do you!? Go inform yourselves.
Did you notice how everyone pretended they did'nt see this one......
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story