Marshall we fooled the Russians into invading Afghanistan in the first place. You do know that don’t you? It wore them down and helped to percipitate their downfall. Could it do the same for us? We have much further to fall than Russia did. Afghanistan isn’t even a nation-state and what we are doing there and in Pakistan make it shaky and ready to fall. So we are causing the problems of instability in Pakistan. Do you under stand yet?

What Obama is doing isn’t going to do much for Afghanistan (they want us to leave just like in Iraq) and has the capacity to make things just that much worse in that benighted pseudo-country and kill many more wedding/funeral parities. Just imagine if that was happening here and it was Chinese who were doing it to “help” us? Just as we are “helping two countries with a threat to the third. Sometimes the best way to solve a problem is to not do anything in the first place. Or to make a strategic retreat.

Marshall we fooled the Russians into invading Afghanistan in the first place. You do know that don’t you? It wore them down and helped to precipitate their downfall. Could it do the same for us? We have much further to fall than Russia did. Afghanistan isn’t even a nation-state and what we are doing there and in Pakistan make it shaky and ready to fall. So we are causing the problems of instability in Pakistan. Do you under stand yet?

What Obama is doing isn’t going to do much for Afghanistan (they want us to leave just like in Iraq) and has the capacity to make things just that much worse in that benighted pseudo-country and kill many more wedding/funeral parties. Just imagine if that was happening here and it was Chinese who were doing it to “help” us? Just as we are “helping two countries with a threat to the third. Sometimes the best way to solve a problem is to not do anything in the first place. Or to make a strategic retreat.

part deux

I believe the relevence is two fold; one, are we seeking the wrong guy? and two, is there a valid link between AlQaeda and Taliban, meaning did Taliban leaders know in advance of the planning of this tragedy?? If bin Laden, a guest of the Taliban at the time, was not involved in the planning and execution of this act, then, perforce, neither was the Taliban.

It puzzles me why bin Laden would first deny responsibility and then claim it. As an avowed foe of Western influence in the Middle East it seems only to his benefit to claim responsibility. I am not a conspiracy theorist but I am a realist, and truth is always the first causalty of war.

Part one

Conflicting statements, one wonders…:

Messages issued by bin Laden after September 11, 2001 praised the attacks, and explained their motivation while at first denying any involvement.[58] On September 16, 2001, an Al Jazeera news presenter read a message purportedly signed by Osama bin Laden, in which the following words were stated:

I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation.[59][60][61]

In an interview with Osama bin Laden, published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat Karachi on September 28, 2001, he stated: “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act.”[62] There was reportedly no way to prove the e-mail published in Pakistan came from bin Laden. The Taliban denied he had access to any communications.[63][64]

In late October 2001, Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Allouni conducted an interview with Osama bin Laden which was videotaped. Al-Jazeera refused to broadcast it[65] and terminated its affiliation agreement with CNN[66] due to CNN’s broadcasting of the interview on January 31, 2002.[67] In the interview, bin Laden addressed the September 11 attacks, saying

If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists ... We will work to continue this battle, God permitting, until victory or until we meet God before that occurs.[68]

In November 2001, US forces recovered a videotape from a bombed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, bin Laden talks of planning the attacks. Translations from the tape include the following lines:

...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all…We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on…Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group), was in charge of the group…The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn’t know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.[69]

In late November 2002, a letter attributed to Osama bin Laden and translated by British Islamists surfaced, often called bin Laden’s ‘letter to America’. It states the motive behind the September 11 attacks as being: “because you attacked us and continue to attack us” and justifies the selection of a civilian target. Itemizing a list of perceived Western wrongdoings, the letter concludes that “the oppressed have a right to return the aggression” and hinted at further attacks. Also included are a list of demands, advice, and a statement of grievances against the American government and its people. [70]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks

I guess I need to qualify what I said.  The tapes I recall seeing were what was broadcast by the MSM.  The one I am referring to I believe is known as the Jalalabad video which some apparently are now questioning as a fake.  I admit the way the tape was acquired sounds suspicious.  So I guess I must say I am not aware of the any direct evidence as well.

Hello Ardee,
For what its worth my recollection is that the tapes on OBL initially showed him either denying or not admitting to 9-11.  However, later on he did claim responsibility.  I remember looking for this and I recall a tape where he exclaimed that the attack worked better than he ever would have imagined and praising Allah for the success.  Not that this matters one bit regarding what is being argued here and what is going on in the global theater today.

The 9/11 conspirator’s countries of origin are irrelevant to their membership in
AQ which was headquartered in Afghanistan, which would regain its
headquarters status in the event of our withdrawal.

Smarmy much? There is no proof whatsoever of this silly contention, that the restoration of the Taliban means restoration of AlQaeda.. None, nicht, nada. But, of course, being a cornerstone of this neocons desire for more and more death it is repeated endlessly.

“We must wage war on the Taliban because they will restore AlQaeda to prominence.” Taliban never ever committed an act of terrorism against any but their own people while they ruled. Like Sadaam Hussein, they were brutal, harsh and horrible to their own, but internal problems are just that, and none of our business frankly. To push forth a lie, an unproven and unprovable suspicion lends nothing to the debate and only besmirches Marshall’s already ruined reputation.

No legitimate sources question OBL’s responsibility for 9/11 and he did in fact
directly admit it - that’s a false argument, as is the reference to the bogus,
after-the-fact conditional “offer” of OBL’s head.  These are moveon style
talking points with no legitimacy.

To the best of my knowledge bin Laden expressed his approval of that event but never claimed responsibility for it. Perhaps our Cheney clone would supply a link to such an admission? Further, the offer to turn him over is written and proveable, much to the chagrin of Marshall’s consistent fabrications.

Basing a political philosophy on assumption, distortion and outright lie is so much easier than thinking about facts first. I reiterate another poster’s opinion that the posts of Marshall are “poisonous”.

My Question:
“Why do they need Afghanistan to plan box cutter attacks on America?”

Marshall’s Answer:
>>Because they did so already<<

Your reply is my rebuttal.  I refuse to argue with someone who can not even begin to grasp Logic 101.  My advice to you is to go to your local Junior College and see if you get an education.

By Night-Gaunt, December 2 at 2:05 pm #

Yes - Taliban is connected to Pakistan and radical Islam is waging war within
that country as well which makes the idea of our withdrawal far more perilous
because Pakistan has nukes.

The 9/11 conspirator’s countries of origin are irrelevant to their membership in
AQ which was headquartered in Afghanistan, which would regain its
headquarters status in the event of our withdrawal.

No legitimate sources question OBL’s responsibility for 9/11 and he did in fact
directly admit it - that’s a false argument, as is the reference to the bogus,
after-the-fact conditional “offer” of OBL’s head.  These are moveon style
talking points with no legitimacy.

“When they are fighting for us they are “like our own Founding Fathers” but
when they are fighting against us for the same reasons they are “terrorists”
now why is that?”

Again you answer your own question; we supported them because they were
aligned with our interests (a successful attempt to halt soviet expansionism),
were fighting a legitimate war and had not committed terrorist acts like, say,
9/11..  Are you suggesting we should not have supported them?

I guess the Taliban(s), for there are variants, are more connected to Pakistan so that makes it unduly complicated doesn’t it Marshall? Or do you not acknowledge that? Also the fact that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had more to do with 9/11/01 than Iraq, Afghanistan, & Iran make you ponder our present course of action during the past 9 years at all? Have you forgotten that Osama bin-Laden didn’t say his group al-Quaeda* was responsible but he did approve of it? How about that the USA demanded the Afghani Taliban gov’t to “hand over” all al-Queada* forth with and they couldn’t do it so they were attacked en masse? Do you recall any of this?

Many of the al-Queada* bases were originally Mujahadeen from the 1980’s when the American CIA trained the most fanatical as soldiers for liberation, including a youn Osama bin-Ladin. [They had this strange idea that if you are fanatical you will fight harder, other Afghanis were against the idea but were ignored.] Is any of this familiar to you?

When they are fighting for us they are “like our own Founding Fathers” but when they are fighting against us for the same reasons they are “terrorists” now why is that?

*This is a stand alone complex that can generate copy-cats without seeds from the original. Imitation and encourages others just by existing to get involved as we have seen in Britain and Spain.

It is with some sense of irony that I note Marshall’s argument grow weaker with each passing posting.

I wonder at his pontifications about the relationship between Taliban and AlQaeda, something he takes for granted yet noone else can find said linkage, excepting in a past prior to the events of 9/11.

Time and again this Dick Cheney clone refuses to accept that the host Taliban offered up the guest bin Laden prior to any invasion of that nation. He thinks the past prologue, and thus exposes his weakness and slavish devotion to useless slaughter.

Perhaps he owns a lot of stock in munition companies?

By glider, November 29 at 7:51 am #

“For this absurd assumption you are willing to spend trillions of dollars and
untold lives?”

Not an assumption - Taliban already hosted AQ once and there’s no reason to
believe they wouldn’t do it again.

“You do not address how this is an efficient way to fight AQ.”

It denies them a state sponsor and training center from which to launch
attacks.  Their inability to mount large scale attacks since we routed them from
Afghanistan is indication that this strategy has worked.

“Why do they need Afghanistan to plan box cutter attacks on America?”

Because they did so already.

“Why would AQ not just go where we are not to the extent it serves there
purpose (something they have already done).”

You answer your own question.  We leave, they will go there.  This is the worst
case.

“The Taliban was given quite a spanking by our troops.  It is probably unlikely
they would be so supportive of AQ again”

They are still supportive of AQ to this day.  Taliban is ideologically driven, not
driven by fear of the US.

“In fact there is probably a reasonable opportunity for us to negotiate with
them regarding this point.”

That’s an idealistic fantasy.  You will find no experts that believe that, and AQ
itself denies it.

“Or simply give them an ultimatum regarding what we will do if they exhibit
such behavior again.”

They are not a petulant child.  They are a terrorist group.  They laugh at
ultimatums.

“But please answer me this, is there any limit to the money you would throw at
the MIC.  Is there not any cost benefit analysis required for these endeavours or
do you reserve those for the abomination of universal health care?”

That’s your one good point and deserves a good answer.  Withdrawing would
be a financial sink-hole.  Staying has a chance of allowing Afghanistan to fend
for itself.  There’s much to overcome, like corruption, but it has the best chance
of success.

Inherit_the_Gas?

“Inherit_the_Wind”
>>Fine. Don’t believe me. Believe your conspiracy theories everyone here at TD loves, even though it violates Occam’s Razor<<

Your comments are unintelligible to me.  What “conspiracy theory”?  Wouldn’t Occam’s razor suggest Obama appointed Geitner because he thought he was the best man for the job?  Instead you are proposing something more complex.  That he was the only reasonable qualified individual in the America that would accept the job?  I am simply asking for a source for your information since that is violating what would be considered the most logically apparent conclusion and I am not accustomed to accepting random posts on the internet as fact.  Shut up or put up.

Inherit_the_Wind

Perhaps you are suggesting that none of the other limited set of scumbags would take the position.  That I could believe.  However that is disingenuous and a far cry from “no one else would take the position” of Secretary of the Treasury.  Do you disagree with the following link on the subject?

http://www.infowars.net/articles/november2008/061108Geithner.htm

Why don’t you want to reveal your source of information?  Otherwise, what is everyone to do with such a contention, that on its face is illogical, but to discard it?  Up to you, but you might as well spare us such comments if that is the way you want it.

Fine. Don’t believe me. Believe your conspiracy theories everyone here at TD loves, even though it violates Occam’s Razor.

Inherit_the_wind
Re:Geitner
>>NOBODY wanted the job knowing it was to be designated-javelin-catcher.  No need to insert conspiracy BS into the mix—it’s bad enough just the way it is.  I stand by it.<<

Fine, tell me about it.  Who are you or they defining as all the “nobody” people.  Did these people include all the suggestions from the economists and regulators who warned about the mess rather than the ones that got us into it with their behaviour.  Your statement does not past my smell test by I am will to look at your references.  Until then I don’t believe it for 2 seconds.

Marshall,
>>*Will* go, not *might* go.  The Taliban has already proven its status as an enemy and its intention to ally with groups like AQ and project its lethality -thus a resurgence of Taliban is unacceptable to regional/global stability<<

As stated that is simply bullshit.  For this absurd assumption you are willing to spend trillions of dollars and untold lives?  You do not address how this is an efficient way to fight AQ.  Why do they need Afghanistan to plan box cutter attacks on America?  Why would AQ not just go where we are not to the extent it serves there purpose (something they have already done).  The Taliban was given quite a spanking by our troops.  It is probably unlikely they would be so supportive of AQ again, who are a different people, unless we are successful driving them together IMO.  In fact there is probably a reasonable opportunity for us to negotiate with them regarding this point.  Or simply give them an ultimatum regarding what we will do if they exhibit such behavior again.  But please answer me this, is there any limit to the money you would throw at the MIC.  Is there not any cost benefit analysis required for these endeavours or do you reserve those for the abomination of universal health care?

I’m not sure I agree with all of Ardee’s analysis, but I do agree with most of it.

However, my reasoning is much simpler: I know that military operations must be carried out AT THE TIME or the opportunity and window is lost.  In the case of Afghanistan, that window was lost in December of 2002 when Dumbya Bush drained the military in Afghanistan of its resources to send them to prepare for the Iraq invasion.

6 years after abandoning our effort in Afghanistan is no time to pick it up again and expect it is anything BUT a completely new and dangerous situation that we don’t understand.  Too much is different, like the Taliban’s falling-out with Al Qaeda, their decision to keep their battle and policies local, and the BLATANT corruption of the Karzai regime, even to stealing elections.

Therefore, since Sun-Tzu wrote “Never fight a battle you have not already won” and we haven’t already won this (or squandered the victory) we need to back down and away and let them sort it out.  We no longer belong in Afghanistan as the dominant military force.

But for the warmongers it is like heaven for they want such enemies to fight their forever war. War as industry and profit and power. Keep the troops sharp and the weapons hot as any empire would want and we have the trappings of one externally but it is only a matter of time before our clunker of a Republic is brought down in shame—-as they plan. For with a full empire it is much easier to get what they want done. No bothersome courts or groups (ACLU etc.) or any politicians not on the band wagon to mess it up. Ardee is right too in his analysis but it just takes some study to do so in a wide variety of areas and points of view to find out who is speaking the truth & who is speaking to their constituents.

Night-Gaunt refutes the blustering of Marshall, our resident Dick Cheney clone, with great eloquence. I would only reiterate that Marshall’s hypothesis is based upon his own unique views of the relationship between Afghanistan and the Taliban and that of the Taliban with AlQaeda.

There is much evidence that the majority of the non-Pashtun population fears and opposes a government of the Taliban, as they did while that group was in power prior to our invasion. Their choices, however, are severely limited, both by our own military presence and the continuation of our slaughter of innocents as well as the propping up of a puppet regime by our military might. This regime is corrupt, horribly inefficient and very unpopular.

In fact, our presence within that nation focuses anger on the West and makes the Taliban more attractive, a strange goal for Marshall to support, unless he has motives so far unexpressed.

As to the kinship he posits between Taliban and AlQaeda there appears no real proof of such kinship. One does not offer to give up the leader of a group one allies with as Taliban spokespersons offered to do prior to our invasion I think. Further there has been no proof of such a kinship ever posted here, by Marshall or his fellow warmongering neocons, only statements by Taliban representatives saying that the only thing offered was Muslim hospitality, that they knew nothing of the workings or the plans of AlQaeda.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this war has only one real outcome, an undying hatred of the West , not only by radical Islamic extremists, but by the multitudes we negatively affect with our murdering of the population.

Whereas a full blown war with huge casualties, for the unfortunate host country, and ruin what is left of that country is okay with you? A police matter it is and it would have been solved without us murdering millions to do it. War is a terrorist action and if you don’t accept that then go to one of these places and interview the locals. [Or read such interviews like English Al-Jazzera.] They will say it is. Right now the Taliban is a creature of the Pakistan ISI and aren’t “fluid” or “interchangeable” with the al-Quaida franchise. They have been lumped together that way because it is easier for our captains of empire to play it that way. As do you falling for it hook, line and sinker Martial (I find it more appropriate for you than Marshall. You are a son of the new empire that is growing in the belly of the Republic even now ready to burst forth in a shiny new skin ready to wreck havoc upon the world. [Worse than what we are doing now as a kluge of republic/empire ungainly and messy. Empires are streamlined and fast.]

Just and added note, the Northern Alliance is referred to as the other Taliban by the locals.

By cabdriver, November 26 at 4:27 pm #

“because so many of them would be concentrated in one place, it would be a
simple matter to simply return and eradicate them.”

Though you pose this as a serious scenario, then retract it in the next
paragraph, I can only ask whether you mean “simple” like we’re experiencing in
Afghanistan right now?  It’s not like there’s a static monolith called AQ that will
simple mindedly lumber en-masse back into our target sites upon our
withdrawal so we can sneak back in and eradicate them in one fell swoop. 
Upon our exit, Taliban *will* annex Afghanistan and AQ will reestablish a
protectorate there which plans, trains, and mounts regional and global attacks. 
A U.S. exit followed by a return would simply repeat the pattern but from
square one, thus a major setback and hugely expensive in dollars and lives.

“But I doubt that the leaders of Al Qaeda would be interested in doing anything
that obviously stupid.”

Correct.  They would attempt to draw us back in after having retrenched.  This
time we would be without the element of surprise, a Northern Alliance ally, and
would be forced to attempt to reoccupy a large, hardened, well armed and AQ
infested country.

“Do you seriously think that the 9/11 hijackers were directed from
Afghanistan?”

No.  They trained in Afghanistan and their primary organizational structure was
based there at the pleasure of the host state.  The hijacker’s various countries
of origin are irrelevant as is the place of their “direction”.

“That means that we aren’t fighting Al Qaeda any more.”

Not true.  We’re fighting both Taliban and AQ - a fluid and changeable force. 

“The USA initially went in to Afghanistan to try to capture or kill Bin Laden, to
destroy the Al Qaeda training camps, and to kill as many of the Al Qaeda
fighters as possible”

...as well as remove the Taliban and prevent its return to power by assisting in
the establishment of solid governance and self-defense.  Mission has not been
accomplished.  And withdrawing, then repeating our invasion is not a viable
alternative.

By glider, November 27 at 3:37 am #

“Instead you go after AQ where they are, and not where they are not.  Why do
you think it is an efficient strategy to occupy and nation build countries into
which AQ might go?”

*Will* go, not *might* go.  The Taliban has already proven its status as an
enemy and its intention to ally with groups like AQ and project its lethality -
thus a resurgence of Taliban is unacceptable to regional/global stability.

There is no treating a state which sponsors global terrorism as a police matter. 
That’s an implausible concept.

Taliban urges Obama to repudiate Bush’s Afghan policy
(AFP) – Nov 11, 2008

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Afghanistan’s Taliban called on US president-elect Barack Obama to repudiate the “war-mongering” policies of President George W. Bush to repair the country’s image abroad, a group that monitors Islamist websites said.

“The ground realities in Afghanistan and the expectations of the people of America expressed through their votes demand that Obama should shun all policies followed by Bush,” said a Taliban statement as quoted by the SITE Intelligence group.

Obama, who won the US election a week ago, promised during the campaign to begin the withdrawal US troops from Iraq and send more forces to Afghanistan to battle insurgents.

The Taliban warned that if Obama should “follow into the steps of Bush ... and nurture the ambitions of prolonging the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq ... then it is clear that the fate of the Democrats will be even more shameful and despicable than the Republicans.”
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jALX94hvhbXqvzfWS_jUxZKIuCyw

That was roughly a year ago.  How strange it is that the mantra of the Taliban reflects the other comments here.

glider, November 27 at 1:11 pm #

Fact: Geithner got the job because Obama’s Wall Street corporate sponsers demanded it.
***********************************************

Actually, no. I was and am correct.  NOBODY wanted the job knowing it was to be designated-javelin-catcher.  No need to insert conspiracy BS into the mix—it’s bad enough just the way it is.  I stand by it.

Inherit The Wind,
Some good stuff you have there.

However,

“Fact: Geithner got the job because nobody else would take it”

should read:

Fact: Geithner got the job because Obama’s Wall Street corporate sponsers demanded it.

The plenipotentiary, Marshall, is in bloom today. Just wanted to use a new word. Thanks for your indulgence.

Don’t worry. These boys are ready:

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/first-person-sho0ter/

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/

“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.”

“The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.”

- Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/the-ones-who-attacked-us/

Truthdiggers remember what I said immediately after Uncle Barack said he was going to set a new course for Afghanistan???  I said he was going to send 39,999 troops and not the 40,000 requested…

Man, I hate being right all the time!!

And I can’t wait for his speech on Tuesday…  It’s going to be full of all the usual Bullshit about how we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan because we invaded Iraq and that put us behind the eight ball and prevented us from defeating Al Quida when we had a chance and now it’s gonna take that much longer to get out but we’re gonna defeat the bad guys and get out eventually but it’s gonna be a long hard road but the American people are so great and wouldn’t want anything less than victory because that’s just the way we are and god bless our troops and god bless america blah, blah f@$King blah….

He’s so well spoken…..

ardee, November 26 at 2:09 pm #

Welcome, brother.
***************************************************

I’m always fact-driven.
Fact: Paul Volcker is the ONLY person who has lead us out of recession in the last half-century and not simply stumbled into it out of dumb luck.  He’s the only one PROVEN to know what he’s doing.
Fact: Summers has worked very hard to cut out Volcker and prevent his access to Obama.
Fact: Geithner got the job because nobody else would take it.
Conclusion: Obama’s economic policy is riskier than it needs to be.

Fact: In early 2003, GWB started starving what could only be described as a successful campaign in Afghanistan.
Fact: Those resources were massively moved for the attack on Iraq.
(Opinion: The attack on Iraq was worse than pointless.)
Fact: 6.5 years elapsed between March 2003 (when Iraq was attacked) and now.
Fact: The Taliban, which had supported Al Qaeda, have, for their own reasons, ceased supporting A/Q—the love affair is long over.
Fact: Hamid Karzai, who was supposed to be a generally accepted “saviour” has turned out to be another crooked election-fixing dictator, another Nyuen Kai Ky (‘member HIM?)
Fact: ALL the political and military circumstances in Afghanistan have changed.
Conclusion: Our reasons for being there no longer exist.  Withdrawal is now appropriate.

Fact: The Democrats have a super-majority in the House and Senate.
Fact: The Republicans are gleefully obstructing every way they can and saying “See? Dems can’t govern”...and they are sadly correct.
Fact: Obama has NOT used his “bully pulpit” to twist arms and crack heads in Congress to get things done.
Conclusion: Obama, Reid and Pelosi don’t have a clue how to get legislation passed, but the GOP, with a 51 vote majority in the Senate, got almost everything they wanted!

Final Conclusion: Obama has shown that he lacks the knowledge, confidence and experience to challenge his so-called “experts” on economics, Afghanistan, and passing legislation.  Most of this stuff is blatantly obvious, too.

I hope he learns, but I’m fact driven and the facts are currently leading me to dismal conclusions about both President Obama and the Democratic leadership.

Yemen is next, then Venezuela; unless we can disrupt, destroy and dismantle our craven one bi-polar war/money party called congress.

>>By Marshall, November 26 at 5:19 am #
I’ve yet to hear a coherent plan by those who oppose adding troops to Afghanistan.  They can’t seem to formulate a strategy for what happens when the Taliban regains power and AQ re-surges and regains its depleted strength.  They appear to think that if we go home, AQ will just go away.  Seriously, how is there any advantage whatsoever in withdrawing from Afghanistan<<

Have you tried thinking about the situation?  First off, acknowledge that AQ is largely gone from Afghanistan now.  And that a smart plan does not play into the hands of AQ and bankrupt America by deploying our resources inefficiently (a Bin Laden stated AQ goal).  Even if our MIC loves having the new business.  Instead you go after AQ where they are, and not where they are not.  Why do you think it is an efficient strategy to occupy and nation build countries into which AQ might go?  I have yet to hear a logical explanation from you hawks as to how this is the most efficient sustainable strategy.  I say get out now and get out quickly.  Take the battle to them as much as possible using police and intelligence actions.  And if they are stupid enough to concentrate again in Afghanistan or elsewhere, go in and hit them hard.  In the meantime use the wasted trillions of dollars to strengthen America at home.

It no longer makes any difference whatsoever which corrupt, cancer ridden, insane, bloody-minded part of the political duopoly runs this nation.  The hermaphrodite, George Worthless Bush, made love to himself and gave birth to Barack Insane Obama.  The USA crawls on its belly toward the last open grave in the cemetery.

Yes, let us blast them all into malleable consumers, subservient to the whims of the gambling houses on wall-street and their casino owners.

How rude that they should reject the American dream machine!

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Inherit The Wind, November 25 at 11:37 pm

Between sticking with Geithner and Summers, cutting out Volcker, and now this, Obama is rapidly alienating even me.

Welcome, brother.

Marshall, November 26 at 5:19 am #

I’ve yet to hear a coherent plan by those who oppose adding troops to Afghanistan.  They can’t seem to formulate a strategy for what happens when the Taliban regains power and AQ re-surges and regains its depleted strength.

Once again Marshall begins with a premise that has no substance and posits a result therefrom. If the Taliban were to regain power in Afghanistan, and that ignores the fact that aside from the Pashtun tribe there is widespread antipathy to such an occurrence, it is still no guarantee that AlQaeda comes along with the deal.

Further, the longer we remain, the more innocents we kill, the more we prop up a corrupt and inept government, the more we lose the people of Afghanistan. There are problems in this world of ours that simply cannot ever be resolved through use of military might.

A pity Marshall’s world view is so limited as to not understand this elementary truth. Perhaps he channels Dick Cheney.

Chest thumping militarists like Marshall do not like the very idea of “retreat” as a military strategy. He would be in good company with Hitler & Stalin on that who had whole military units designated to keep any from deserting or retreating. Either but capture and sent back to the Front or killed. Maybe it is time for the growing empire of the USA to instigate such caretaker units to keep order and discipline and to punish such transgressors. [But we aren’t quite an empire yet and still holds vestiges of a Republic and can’t. But soon they will.]

Move all troops to their bases then transport them out of country would do it. Sooner the better. Not for 100 al-Qiada by any means is it worth it to alientate entire countries against us.

To Marshal…

I’ll formulate it for you, they will take over the country and it will all go back to the same tribe controlled poppy growing profitable business. The United States of Amnesia have already lost this war, you just don’t realise it yet. You as a people must absolutely find your balls and admit it, yes we lost this war and a gradual withdrawal is our only option, but it is not going to happen, so prepare more bodybags and this fucking yellow ribbons you are so proud to be putting on the back of your cars and send more men in. The pipe is absolutely worth it I guess.

Bush and Cheney exploited 9/11 and flooded the U.S.
with the poison of fear, and all but a few heartily
drank it down.
The U.S. lost more than 2600 dead on 9/11; it lost it’s
ability to reason. Jingoism is the new Pied Piper of
Hamlin and everybody dances to the tune.
I say: fear is a thief; don’t let it steal from you!

This must be what is called “grasping at straws,” a suicidal attempt to prolong an era that is passing and will soon be gone.

John Wayne would have approved but he began his career in black and white.  The blood and gut of this so-called “war” is in color, real death and destruction…and let’s not forget, money-making.

I’ve yet to hear a coherent plan by those who oppose adding troops to Afghanistan.  They can’t seem to formulate a strategy for what happens when the Taliban regains power and AQ re-surges and regains its depleted strength.  They appear to think that if we go home, AQ will just go away.  Seriously, how is there any advantage whatsoever in withdrawing from Afghanistan?

Well, like it or not Obama has kept at least one of his campaign promises.  At the time I was foolish enough to think he might just be posturing on this one but have long since been set straight.  Puppet or conspirator there is no resemblance here to change you can believe in.

Where’s Congress?  Where’s courage?

Well there you go. The only change that’s taken place is in Obama’s integrity.

Wrong decision!!!

Yeah, Napoleon had a an “exit strategy” when he thought to send French troops to conquer Russia. Indeed, troops did exit Russia, though not exactly as strategized.

Later, Russian leaders themselves had an “exit strategy” when they sent troops to conquer Afghanistan. Again, troops did exit, though not exactly as strategized.

Before that, American troops were sent to conquer Vietnam and then…you know…exit. They did exit seven year later, thought not…etc., etc.

Perhaps 47% should get on down to their local recruiters to see about following up on their “support,” rather addiction. Along with Mr. Obama and his crew of strategizers. At least Napoleon usually went along with his troops.

He’ll have to make one HELL of a speech to convince me!

I am thoroughly disgusted.  The War in Afghanistan was lost 6 years ago when Bush attacked Iraq—it cannot now be won.

Between sticking with Geithner and Summers, cutting out Volcker, and now this, Obama is rapidly alienating even me.

He will make a glorious speech and Obamabots will swoon and say we don’t know what he knows. That he’s so intelligent and a Constitutional scholar.  Yuck!

But the youth will stay home in 2012.

What a miserably sad decision to introduce the so-called “holidays”!  Mourning Becomes Americans, in the sense of Eugene O’Neill—“becomss” meanng “to be appropriate to”.

Well,by now it is now obvious that President Obama is just another lapdog,dancing for the corporatist fascist who call the shots.The Empire demands blood,no matter that the cost may very well be the downfall of said Empire.