Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
July 26, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.
x

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.






The Unwomanly Face of War

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report
Email this item Print this item

The Crushing Legacy of Bush and Cheney

Posted on Dec 2, 2009

By Joe Conason

From now on, the headlines about Afghanistan will be slugged “Obama’s War,” and perhaps that is fair enough given the president’s many endorsements of what he has called a war of necessity. It would be much less fair, however, to ignore the events that led us to this moment, when any choice offers no great guarantee of progress and no small prospect of trouble.

Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
Those events began with the inexplicable decision by officials of the previous administration to allow Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other ranking leaders of al-Qaida to escape from Afghanistan to Pakistan in December 2001. At the time, as a new Senate report on the battle of Tora Bora recalls, Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, and Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of American forces in Afghanistan, decided not to augment the tiny contingent of special operations troops on the ground with sufficient force to capture or kill b   in Laden and his deputies. They later claimed to be worried that “too many American troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency,” a rationale that can only evoke bitter laughter now.

None of the reasons offered back then for inaction at Tora Bora made sense after the outrage of Sept. 11, when the entire world, including the Afghan people, were cheering the U.S. invasion. The pattern of deception that later led to war in Iraq began with expressions of doubt by both Franks and Vice President Dick Cheney about bin Laden’s presence in Tora Bora—a doubt that none of the commanders on the ground shared and that always sounded more like an excuse than an explanation. If there was any chance that the perpetrators of Sept. 11 could be found in those mountains, then maximum force should have been deployed as rapidly as possible.

What we know now, of course, is that Cheney, Rumsfeld and President Bush himself were distracted from the vital necessity of victory in Afghanistan—which meant not only driving out the Taliban but installing a real government in their place—by their obsession with Iraq. Not only did the al-Qaida leadership escape, but so did Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban, who returned to mount a threatening insurgency two years later, just as the Bush White House and the Pentagon were declaring “mission accomplished” in Baghdad.

The resulting neglect of Afghanistan—with all the corruption, disillusionment and anger that have ensued—had reached a critical stage when the Bush administration finally departed. Its own commanders were left behind to warn the new president that after eight years of war, the enemy had gained the upper hand.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide, Desktop

Advertisement

Square, Site wide, Mobile
No further recrimination is necessary—history will render sterner judgments than any that can be written now. But after eight years of incompetence and arrogance, how can the United States salvage what has become of the “good war”?

Escalation appears to be a self-defeating strategy. If the secretary of defense worried in 2001 that a few thousand Americans in Tora Bora would enrage the Afghan population, how will that population react to the presence of nearly 200,000 foreign troops next year? The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan further inflames suspicions of American domination not only in that country but across the Muslim world—as the war in Iraq also did—and especially in strategically vulnerable Pakistan.

As investigative reporter Aram Roston recently revealed in a cover story for The Nation, the Afghan countryside is already so deeply permeated by the Taliban that contractors shipping logistical supplies to our troops routinely bribe the enemy to allow safe passage. Military sources estimated that the payoffs amounted to as much as 10 percent of the cash value of those shipments. So if we spend another $30 billion a year to send in additional troops, roughly $3 billion will end up in the coffers of the Taliban, far more than it needs to buy the ammunition and explosives that kill our soldiers.

President Obama seems to recognize the futility of the current situation. Perhaps he is raising the ante in order to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, the same objective apparently shared by our allies in Europe and the discredited government in Afghanistan. Unsatisfactory as that would be, it is a legacy of the same politicians who now urge our troops to march resolutely into the deadly mess those politicians made.

Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer.

©  2009 Creators.com

Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile


Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:


Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 10, 2009 at 7:13 am Link to this comment

Ardee—in reference to Tora Bora, I pointed out that the reports contradicted one another.  This is a sign that there is some validity in some of them, but it does not tell us which reports are nearer the truth.  There is also a certain amount of evidence that Osama bin Laden has been dead for several years.  There is evidence that many of the parties involved in Afghan matters would find it convenient to pretend that he was alive, including al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the puppet government installed by the U.S. government, and the U.S. government itself, so stories about his continued existence are to be expected.

In general, then, I don’t see much in the Tora Bora story to put faith in, or much of anything else that is said about bin Laden.

In even more general, as I’ve said several times before, the U.S. government and the major media have been observed to lie, not occasionally, but as a matter of common practice.  Just about everyone knows this.  Under this set of circumstances, a great deal of skepticism about anything they report seems to be called for.

If you believe otherwise, I would like to know what your reasons are, and I’d like to know what your methods are for obtaining the truth.  I’ve made these requests before and so far I haven’t seen anything to the point in response.

Report this

By ardee, December 10, 2009 at 4:18 am Link to this comment

My theory is that Conason is a Democratic Party shill and the purpose of his fable is to keep leftish critics of Obama in line, to keep them believing in Obama’s good imperial war as opposed to Bush’s bad imperial war,....

So, Anarcissie, despite your contention that ...” I’ve given cogent reasons derived from evidence—common experience—for my views.  Therefore, I hold that rationales like Conason’s for Obama’s expansion of the war in Afghanistan are invalid.”

what you do is post your own opinion, not an invalid or unacceptable action by any means. But , when I link to credible ( despite you never having heard of the sources) links to eyewitness accounts of the Tora Bora scenario, or post my own opinion reinforced by said links, you dismiss them as invalid.

Thus,Anarcissie, in a nutshell, you (figuratively) hold your breath, kick your feet and turn blue. Your “my opinion is better than your opinion”, and, “any source I am not familiar with ( meaning any source that refutes my position)” must be propaganda seems more than a little simplistic to me. The irony here is that I agree with much of what you state, excepting for your attempted refustations of what the world perceives as fact, the allowing of bin Laden to slip away at Tora Bora.

I know you to be an intelligent poster, but sadly one far too fixated on your own position at the expense of credibility and with an unyielding inability to even consider other options.. That is really no way to live I think.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 10, 2009 at 2:31 am Link to this comment

Thus far, I have been unable to acquire the name of the “look similar” person, misused as a “double,” throughout the Tora-Bora B.S., by the over-paid puppets of the CIA stooges. Due to the several “look similars,” it is very difficult. My apology. 

For me it is saddening, that so many intelligent
persons continue to permit themselves, with their
craftiness, to be misused by the NAZI/illuminati-
brotherhood of the Federal Reserve. Spread by the
original NAZI CIA to all branches of the US Gov.
especially the USArmy, more recently. WHile the
USAF quietly moves on with its unusual captives and its unusual flying machines.

Instead of misusing the USA as the engine to pull the USA and the western world into oblivion, these folk could apply their intelligence to correcting problems of the USA and the western world. Logically, goal #1 would be the application of their skills to their leadership.

Report this

By Bushfatigue, December 9, 2009 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment

The last thing that Bush/Cheney and their neo-con cabal wanted was to capture Bin Laden in 2001.  It would have taken the air out of an attack on Iraq. 

I believe, and don’t think its crazy at all, that they underfunded and under supported the troops at Tora Bora in the expectation that Bin Laden would escape, allowing them to use the al Qaeda bogey man to frighten the American people into supporting their foreign adventures, which had a lot more to do with Israel and oil than national security.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 9, 2009 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

All Americans who know of his visits to the US on the
CIA-falsified passports, and those in attendance on the
US naval vessel that did one kidney transplant, and all
who read a copy of the simple obituary in his hometown
newspaper, years ago, know that Osama bin Laden >was<
not a myth.  Nor are the monies, still collected by his
offspring from family Bush contracts, a myth.  Myths
are the ideas, that a few commenters pass back and
forth on Truthdig, when they are on the job in their
cubicles.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 9, 2009 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

Ardee—if you look, you’ll see that I haven’t said Osama is a myth in toto; what I’ve said is that most of the information about him is unverifiable and unreliable.  I’ve given cogent reasons derived from evidence—common experience—for my views.  Therefore, I hold that rationales like Conason’s for Obama’s expansion of the war in Afghanistan are invalid.

If you hold some other view, I’d like to know exactly what it is, and I’d like to see your justification for it.  Don’t bluster; just tell me why you think what you think.

Report this

By ardee, December 9, 2009 at 3:51 am Link to this comment

Oh horseshit, Anaracissie. You discount any citing that opposes your (silly) contention that Osama is myth.

Noone is arguing that propaganda and distortions do not exist, but you use such as a blanket denial of everything that fails to dovetail into your own rather unique political opinions. While that must make you very secure within your walls, it paints a poor portrait indeed of you as a thinking and rational person I fear.

It is not possible to debate one who refuses to accept any source but his or her own.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 8, 2009 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment

Ardee—As I said before, the burden of proof is on you, because you are making positive assertions about your knowledge of Osama bin Laden, much of which I am skeptical about.  I want to see the epistemological structure by which you come to the beliefs which support these assertions.  Simply stating that my skepticism is illogical or has other undesirable qualities is not an argument.  I have given good reasons for my skepticism, to wit, the previous history of the government and media by whom we receive stories of Osama bin Laden, which is that they have offered us numerous lies in the past.  Indeed, that seems to be their default practice.

If you can’t justify your beliefs by means of evidence and reason, you might consider rethinking them.  Without this sort of critical thinking we might easily fall prey to the sort of imperialist propaganda we observe in the article we are commenting on.

Report this

By ardee, December 8, 2009 at 6:11 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, December 8 at 9:55 am

I really do not wish to be rude to you,Anarcissie, but your position is absolutely unsupportable. Simply because you do not know the names of those who report you seek to discount that of which they speak, only to serve your own purpose. All the while destroying logic, honesty and mutual discussion.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 8, 2009 at 5:55 am Link to this comment

ardee, December 8 at 8:32 am:
‘All your words prove, unfortunately, is that you seem beyond the reach of fact and logic.’

We don’t know that, since neither facts nor logic have been presented—only fables.  Come up with some verifiable facts and we’ll see if we can do some logic on them.

Report this

By ardee, December 8, 2009 at 4:32 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, December 7 at 9:10 pm #

Ardee—the Wikipedia material certainly has the Arabian-Nights quality I mentioned.  It’s all far away and mysterious; we hear names we have never heard before and will never hear again; one says Osama was within grasp and another says he has vanished into the mountains of the East and yet another says he has not been seen at all.

*****************************************

All your words prove, unfortunately, is that you seem beyond the reach of fact and logic.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, December 8, 2009 at 4:24 am Link to this comment

Afghanistan Will Never Be “Obama’s War” he’s merely the clean up crew.
Just because Obama refer to it as the ‘Just War’ does not mean he would have made the same decisions as Cheney. It could be more a comparison to the Unjustified War with Iraq. And it was a War ‘with’ Iraq to control their oil reserves.
It sets my hair on fire when I hear a Liberal concede this point and worse when they go spouting off that Obama is a warmonger to boot. As much as it pisses me off, it no doubt please The Bushies to be relieved from their responsibilty, thus accountabilty by the Left as well.
Putting boots on the ground was only one of many options available, Obama may have chosen another route to begin with.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 7, 2009 at 10:53 pm Link to this comment

Re: Anarcisie

Your comment: ” Here Conason has put him into harness to help blame Mr. O’s imperial warmongering on his predecessor.  No doubt, like some ifrit under a magic spell, he serves many such causes every day, even if he’s moldering in the grave.”

Can you qualify your presumption WITH CREDIBLE LINKS, hey… I’ll engage even QUASI-CREDIBLE links.  I’m not claiming I’ll outrightly QUALIFY quasi-credible, but I’d certainly engage them.

For the record, and before you engage the “quasi-creditable”, that is if you do… please give your reasons for asserting their plausible quasibility as opposed to other sources, or their genuine plausibility.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 7, 2009 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment

Ardee—the Wikipedia material certainly has the Arabian-Nights quality I mentioned.  It’s all far away and mysterious; we hear names we have never heard before and will never hear again; one says Osama was within grasp and another says he has vanished into the mountains of the East and yet another says he has not been seen at all.  All that is lacking is a djinni or two; Sheherazade would certainly have thrown a few in.

You can see how Osama is more use alive than dead, or maybe both at once, like Schrödinger’s cat.  Here Conason has put him into harness to help blame Mr. O’s imperial warmongering on his predecessor.  No doubt, like some ifrit under a magic spell, he serves many such causes every day, even if he’s moldering in the grave.

Report this

By ardee, December 7, 2009 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

Ardee—I haven’t said that bin Laden was entirely made up.  ......

From Wiki:

Tora Bora (Pashto: ???? ????, “black dust” ), known locally as Sp?n Ghar, is a cave complex situated in the White Mountains (Safed Koh) of eastern Afghanistan, in the Pachir Wa Agam District of Nangarhar province, approximately 50 km west of the Khyber Pass and 10 km north of the border of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in Pakistan.

During the US invasion of Afghanistan it was one of the strongholds of the Taliban and its Arab Al Qaeda allies. As the suspected hide-out of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, it was the location of the December 2001 Battle of Tora Bora.

and…..

A search of the area by U.S. forces continued into January, but no sign of bin Laden or the al-Qaeda leadership emerged. Former CIA officer Gary Berntsen, who led the CIA team (consisting primarily of CIA Paramilitary Officers from Special Activities Division) in Afghanistan that was tasked with locating Osama bin Laden, claims in his 2005 book Jawbreaker that he and his team had pinpointed the location of Osama bin Laden. Also according to Berntsen, a number of al-Qaeda detainees later confirmed that bin Laden had escaped Tora Bora into Pakistan via an easterly route through snow covered mountains to the area of Parachinar, Pakistan. He also claims that bin Laden could have been captured if United States Central Command had committed the troops that Berntsen had requested. Former CIA officer Gary Schroen concurs with this view [3]. Pentagon documents [4] seem to confirm this account. In an October 2004 opinion article in The New York Times, Gen. Tommy Franks wrote, “We don’t know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time…Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives ... but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.” Franks, who retired in 2003, was the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan at the time. The last time Osama bin Laden was overheard on the VHF radio was on December 14, 2001. In 2008 Andy McNab, the pseudonym of a former SAS trooper echoed the claims of Berntsen, claiming that the Coalition were, “within a whisker” of capturing bin Laden at Tora Bora.

there is more if you are interested, Wiki Tora Bora battle will lead you there…

It is my belief that the killing or capture of bin Laden at such an early stage in the war was contrary to the aims and ambitions of President Cheney ( and his drunken little sidekick whatshisname….)

Report this

By don knutsen, December 7, 2009 at 9:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We read articles over and over, by people in the thick of it or by one of the very few investigative journalists left with the courage to practice their craft, of our former administration’s crimes. YES CRIMES that by their own definition amount to treason against our country. Yet still there is no courage within our sabatoged political system to hold these criminals to account, for anything. Untill we stop this never-ending drivel and indict Cheney, Bush, and the rest of his cabinet for treason against the USA we will have no credibility anywhere in the world when we pound our chests in the name of freedom and justice….an antiquated idea at best.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 7, 2009 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

Ardee—I haven’t said that bin Laden was entirely made up.  However, Conason’s tale here, which I do suspect is largely fable, requires belief in a lot of unverifiable detail, such as how Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld allowed him to escape from Tora Bora, and this is why Obama fans can blame Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld for the fact that Obama is choosing to wage an imperial war in Afghanistan.  All we need is a magic carpet for bin Laden to escape on, if he’s not long dead, as many suspect.  There is no way to sift out the truth from this melange of legends, fables, rumors, propaganda, and outright lying; or if you know of one, please lay it on us.

My theory is that Conason is a Democratic Party shill and the purpose of his fable is to keep leftish critics of Obama in line, to keep them believing in Obama’s good imperial war as opposed to Bush’s bad imperial war, in the much larger context of lying and misdirection which the U.S.—the state—creates in order to justify its endless imperialism and war.  I think my theory comports with observed facts, and I invite you to consider the possibility that it is correct.

The U.S. could best contribute to peace in Afghanistan by ceasing to do evil there.  Fat chance, I’m afraid; men are drawn to evil like moths to flame.

Report this

By ardee, December 7, 2009 at 4:37 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, December 6 at 1:19 pm #

Ardee—I think you’re missing the point.  You (and ITW) are asserting, more or less, that the government and the media are veracious.

Not really, not actually, but I do not speak for ITW.

That the name bin Laden has much attached to it that is manufactured for political and military purpose is not the question. That you seek to make him an entirely made up cartoon for said purpose is the issue.

Doing so retards progress as he may be a psychotic radical but he does represent a real and growing popular political position regardless of the uses others put upon his existence . You cannot bring peace to that region without considering bin Laden and his role.

Report this

By surfnow, December 6, 2009 at 11:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Forget about Bush being blamed for any of the devastation that he wrought- including the wars ,the economic depression, the thievery on Wall Street, the complete loss of credibility in the world etc. etc..With Korporate mouthpieces fully entrenched in virtually all of the media that really matters, Bush will soon be enshrined as 1 of the 3 greatest presidents in our history. Obama will take the hit for everything- so get ready for a huge Republican resurgence in the midterms and in the White House in 2012.  Can you say Mrs. President Palin?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 6, 2009 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

Ardee—I think you’re missing the point.  You (and ITW) are asserting, more or less, that the government and the media are veracious.  I have cast doubt on your belief, and given evidence for doubt (for example, the well-known lies about Vietnam and Iraq—and I am only scratching the surface.)  I think you need to justify your belief; it is you who make the positive assertion, and a rather ambitious one at that.  It is a problem in epistemology which I don’t think you can dismiss as lightly as you have.

Or, if I am mistaken, and you do agree that the government and media lie incessantly, then I’d like you to explain why you think they are making an exception for Osama bin Laden and so forth.

I think my position is rational and I have explained it rationally, which merits more than handwaving in response.

Report this

By ardee, December 6, 2009 at 5:14 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, December 5 at 8:39 pm #

Ardee—the sources of our information about Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and so forth are the U.S. government, the boss media, and various conspiracy theorists and fabulists.  Afghanistan is far away, and almost nothing can be checked, validated, seen with other eyes.
********************************

This is both an attitude and a belief system that lends itself to those who havent a leg to stand on. Sorry, Anarcissie, but someone must say this to you.

Anything that seeks to dent your position is dismissed as “propaganda”. This is not reality, not honesty and certainly not any way to live.

Are you really denying the existence of said individual?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 6, 2009 at 4:06 am Link to this comment

Re: ardee

Your comment: “In the interest of the other folks who come here for real political discourse i now abandon this crap and will turbo scroll past your feeble efforts forthwith.”

Why thank you ardee, that’s mightily kind of you.  And anytime you feel the need to engage in “REAL political discourse”, y’all come back now… ya’ hear.

BTW (cause I forgot), just “scroll past” my comment.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 6, 2009 at 3:44 am Link to this comment

Re: Your comment: “Afghanistan is far away, and almost nothing can be checked, validated, seen with other eyes.”

So, how do I know the world is round?  I haven’t seen it, I’ve seen representations of it…I’ve heard what those who “know these things” had to say… I’ve not done the math to prove it to myself… I also have not flown around the world to prove it to myself, so then, is it ODD that I believe the world is round?  Because I can say without hesitation… I believe that the world is round, tell me why you think I could believe such a thing?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 5, 2009 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, December 5 at 9:04 pm:
’... I can assert that space aliens are running the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the OBL is one of them…“far away and almost nothing can be checked, validated, seen with other eyes”

You can assert ANY conspiracy theory that way saying “there’s no way to prove it doesn’t exist”.’

I’m not asserting any conspiracy theory, however, am I?  I am the skeptic—you and ardee are the true believers.  What’s more, you believe in sources known to have purveyed monstrous lies, which is going some.  How do you do it?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 5, 2009 at 5:04 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, December 5 at 8:39 pm #

Ardee—the sources of our information about Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and so forth are the U.S. government, the boss media, and various conspiracy theorists and fabulists.  Afghanistan is far away, and almost nothing can be checked, validated, seen with other eyes.  Even if we went there we could not understand the language of the people.  Need I say more?  Why do I even have to say this much?
************************************************

You shouldn’t if you are going to continue with this drivel.  I can assert that space aliens are running the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the OBL is one of them…“far away and almost nothing can be checked, validated, seen with other eyes”

You can assert ANY conspiracy theory that way saying “there’s no way to prove it doesn’t exist”.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 5, 2009 at 4:39 pm Link to this comment

Ardee—the sources of our information about Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and so forth are the U.S. government, the boss media, and various conspiracy theorists and fabulists.  Afghanistan is far away, and almost nothing can be checked, validated, seen with other eyes.  Even if we went there we could not understand the language of the people.  Need I say more?  Why do I even have to say this much?

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 5, 2009 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

As far as Bush-Cheney and their legacy are concerned, one item must be avoided.  We dare not inform the offspring or relatives of Usama bin Laden that his kidney infection was bestowed during his last illegal visit to the US.  Instead of an infamous, black GMC van running him over at an intersection, or sending a hollow-point or steel jacket .222 thru his skull, it was much easier to slip the kidney infection to him. 

Neither NAZIs nor the Hapsburg family nor bastardized illuminati comprehended that one death did not end an agreement entered into by a Moslem family, who continue their agreements until finalization.  The finalization of “their” agreement with the family Bush has yet to come.  The agreement was with the family Bush, not the citizenry of the USA, of which they are well aware . . .

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 5, 2009 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

Certainly, Mr. Hussein O. did not select his parentage. However, he did agree to become the pawn of the Rockefeller branch of the illuminati.  Otherwise, he would not be the only half-Kenyan in history to enjoy the status of the “queens men,” reinforced and accompanied by her illuminati entourage.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 5, 2009 at 9:50 am Link to this comment

Propaganda parrots puke the same old same old.  All former insiders and most of the intelligent populace are aware that Usama bin Laden was never the pipeline for money to the Taliban.  Also, since he has been dead for seven years, he hasnt been the pipeline for anything. His progeny and the Saudis continue to honor his contracts with the family Bush, while paid propagandists continously pump their illuminati-party drivel into the internet.  Too bad these folk are unable to apply their intelligence to activities that would contribute to the solution of world problems.  Like, replacing illuminati propaganda with truth.

Report this

By ardee, December 5, 2009 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, December 5 at 11:39 am #

 
Without going off into highly imaginative conspiracy theory, I think it’s possible to suppose that Osama bin Laden is wholly or partly a legend, or that he was not in the legendary place assigned to him, or that if he was there, he did not find it difficult to escape.  Much of what comes out of the Middle East sounds like it was taken from the pages of the Arabian Nights.

Osama bin Laden is a real person, a wealthy person and not at all an imaginary figure. The Tenth Mountain Division was pretty damn certain that he and other high ranking members of AlQaeda were indeed in a cave system in Tora Bora. A quick use of any search engine would give you dozens of reliable references to this factoid.

But suppose the seemingly fanciful tales about him are true:  What purpose would be served by capturing or killing him?  Al-Qaeda, if it actually exists, does not seem to be a coherent, disciplined organization but a movement, and not a very large one at that.  It would not disappear or become nonfunctional if its leader were removed; the leader would simply be apotheosized and the movement would go on.  But as a fugitive (maybe a mythical fugitive) bin Laden can serve as a convenient hate object for the masses, like Immanuel Goldstein in 1984, thus enabling our great leaders to manipulate them—as in the present case.

Truth mixed with puzzling assertion.As bin Laden is the conduit for the money necessary to train ,equip and plan for terrorists actions I think it obvious why he should be captured, tried and ,if convicted , imprisoned forever. AlQaeda is small to be certain, but seemingly pretty effective and , while I agree that , should Osama be taken another would arise in his place, I disagree that taking him out of action would have no impact upon the effectiveness of that organisation he funds from his vast wealth.

Report this

By Jim Yell, December 5, 2009 at 7:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think that the Military-Industrial Complex is scared to death that without a hot war going on all the time they will lose control of the national treasury and be unable to justify the outrageously over priced weapons systems that do not work, or do not work all that well. Of course it really is the loss of over pricing that they are most afraid of. They get rich and the American People get poorer and poorer, all for a lie.

Can we imagine if we just had enough military to protect our borders and discourage attack, how the saved money could be used to better the country and make it what we once thought it was working to be? A fair place with freedom to believe or not to believe, freedom to make a living and now it is becoming nothing but a cash cow for a bunch of already obscenelly wealth corporations and individuals who are in fact traitors.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 5, 2009 at 7:39 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, December 5 at 5:31 am:
‘How about discussing Conason’s article?
Conason states pretty much spot on my personal take on the situation. ... The ONE question that is still really open in my mind is WTF were Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney thinking in not going after OBL in Tara Bora? ...’

Without going off into highly imaginative conspiracy theory, I think it’s possible to suppose that Osama bin Laden is wholly or partly a legend, or that he was not in the legendary place assigned to him, or that if he was there, he did not find it difficult to escape.  Much of what comes out of the Middle East sounds like it was taken from the pages of the Arabian Nights.

But suppose the seemingly fanciful tales about him are true:  What purpose would be served by capturing or killing him?  Al-Qaeda, if it actually exists, does not seem to be a coherent, disciplined organization but a movement, and not a very large one at that.  It would not disappear or become nonfunctional if its leader were removed; the leader would simply be apotheosized and the movement would go on.  But as a fugitive (maybe a mythical fugitive) bin Laden can serve as a convenient hate object for the masses, like Immanuel Goldstein in 1984, thus enabling our great leaders to manipulate them—as in the present case.

It is obvious, I think, that if “we” have armies marching about in the Middle East, some of the locals are going to resent it and shoot at them, or throw bombs.  That’s the way trooping primates, including humans, behave.  You would think the more intelligent ones could come to some agreement about staying off one another’s turf, but no luck.  And so excuses are needed to perpetuate the slaughter.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 5, 2009 at 5:44 am Link to this comment

In addition to the preponderence of evidence provided
by scientists, engineers and pilot-associations,
former insiders continue to discreetly reveal
accurate information about the NAZI-and-illuminati-
types, many of German-American heritage who with pimp
sympathizers, planned and pulled off all events
associated with the eleventh of September, 2001 AD. 
It was their alleged think-tank that invented the
name, „Al Kaida,“ which they subsequently filled with
CIA operatives, many initially hired with „black
monies,“ stolen from the US Treasury.  The public
media, owned by their „masters,“ continually diverts
attention to this artificial group.  However, former
insiders will continue to reveal the true story.

I am in full agreement with the suggestion that all
persons, who use scapegoating tactics to decrement
the opinions of persons who support the above-
verified data, are either hirees or confused
volunteers of the group who are responsible for the
9-11-2001 AD insult to humanity.  Some of these
quasi-humans are members of, and the remainder akin
to, the world-wide group who, in their three special
days of the year, kidnap innocent children to murder
in their satanical sacrifice activities, related to
the „Skull and Bones“ fraternity.  They lack insight
into the fact that the Life-Spark departs the earthly
shell at „death,“ and that a punitive eternity awaits
them.

Report this

By ardee, December 5, 2009 at 5:03 am Link to this comment

Outraged, December 4 at 3:07 pm #

You reveal yourself as scum with each subsequent post. I wonder why you do so. The scenario I posted regarding both your lie and lack of character in admitting your error stand as fact.

You are really an excretion upon truth and fairness, regardless of how you seek to obfuscate. Lucky you that you post in anonymity. Perhaps your personality,a s revealed so embarrassingly, explains your lack of real friends…still living above your mothers garage?

In the interest of the other folks who come here for real political discourse i now abandon this crap and will turbo scroll past your feeble efforts forthwith. But you are really truly a scumbag.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 5, 2009 at 1:31 am Link to this comment

How about discussing Conason’s article?
Conason states pretty much spot on my personal take on the situation. This, of course, upsets the 9/11 conspiracy paranoids, who can’t believe it was OBL, but are convinced it HAD to be CIA or Mossad (which makes no sense).

The ONE question that is still really open in my mind is WTF were Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney thinking in not going after OBL in Tara Bora?  It’s easy to postulate that:
A) They didn’t want the war in Afghanistan to end because they wanted an excuse for Iraq.
B) Cheney already believed OBL was out of there and working with Saddam (???—Saddam and AQ were deadly enemies…..)
C) They are self-deluding immoral idiots incapable of any real vision who indulged in fantasy that a victory in Iraq would lead to the Arab world endorsing our “benign” leadership there…yeah, right….
D) They were so deep into war plans on Iraq since Dec 2000 that that they took their “eye off the ball” at Tara Bora, thinking it was all over anyway.
E) They are immoral idiots (did I say that already?)
F) They are incompetent idiots.

I go with D) E) and F), personally.

I’ve said before that when you lose an opportunity in a war, it’s gone forever and you MUST adjust your strategy and priorities to match the current situation.

I would STRONGLY recommend that the President re-read “The Art of War” by Sun-Tzu, especially the line about “never engage in a battle you have not already won”, and he is making that very mistake now.

My take on the Dems is not that they are as immoral as the GOPers, but that they have been spineless eunuchs since 1994, or, even further, since Reagan got his insane legislation back in the early 80’s where even with a majority, so many “blue dogs” backed the Ray-Gun that permanent damage was done to the American economy, the Federal budget process, and our overall freedom.  They even f***ed up ending Bork’s nomination, leaving the GOP ammo about how he was “borked” and should have been on the USSC (heaven help us!).

So I come back to the simple: Afghanistan is a lost opportunity.  A surge is idiotic and strategy has to be COMPLETELY redrawn in preparation for a withdrawal that burns as few bridges as possible.

Iraq is a nearly a lost cause—very little can be salvaged there and it’s going to take a long time.

Iran is not a lost cause but it will take many years and lots of patience before THAT relationship can be repaired—-Bush HAD the opportunity but his offensive, unnecessary and factually incorrect “Axis of Evil” speech destroyed it.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 5, 2009 at 12:37 am Link to this comment

Well… ya know… after reading the last three comments which for me (decide for yourselves) very seriously kinda sorta, almost and pretty much sound like they’ve been hit with a metaphorical lead balloon.  When my front porch was mopped (courtesy of of our local finist cabal), I was definitely hit with the same “metaphorical” lead balloon of sorts.  I admonish that my specific LEAD BALLOON was much more real than most “proverbial” lead balloons, just the same…..  I found the following quotes…. well, disturbing…. (and “ardee” apparently has the night off, lol).

Consider these quotes as a whole:

warmongering sides of the same corporate coin”, Bush was right”, “What we did not truly understand was how compromised our President was in his bid to be elected by his own party and its leaders”, and “plan on this truly becoming a 100 year war because that is what the corporations want, and the political parties are willing to go along with it, unless you dry up their money.”

AND:
“How often do you witness anyone examining the media’s notions of Hillary Clinton’s interests in the war?”, “would have the public believe of them that they have no reason to wonder whether Clinton takes her orders from Obama, or whether, in fact, things are the other way around.”, ” but that Nancy Pelosi should find herself being compromised by loyalty”.

AND:
“Didn’t we used to like Osama sortta” and ” Look, bush,cheney,and their cabal are CRIMINALS who will escape justice for their atrocities until the USofA is brought down.”

It could be me, but does anyone see an underlying message here?  We could go on and on and I could debunk much of this mantra, but I’ll refrain from the bean counter analogies (NOT that they are not IMPORTANT) but I think most “get it”, especially given the state of “affairs”.  Is it plausible that these posts are sincere, sure.  If that is the case, these posters need to read more and at LEAST consider that those professing “kinship” can be a specious lot here in 2009.

Hang tough.

Report this

By berniem, December 4, 2009 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

Gee! Didn’t we used to like Osama sortta like we liked Saddam and the Shah and Marcos, et. al.? Maybe bush let Osama scoot because he was a Saudi & a friend of one of his Saudi friends maybe? Look, bush,cheney,and their cabal are CRIMINALS who will escape justice for their atrocities until the USofA is brought down. The Nazis and Tojo would NEVER have faced justice if they had won the war. Does anyone remember Stalin in an orange jumpsuit?

Report this

By talullah, December 4, 2009 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment

re: djnoll, December 4 at 3:21 pm #

“It is interesting reading the various postings here because it is just repeating what has been said []”

How often do you witness anyone examining the media’s notions of Hillary Clinton’s interests in the war? Most journalists, or those journalists with the most influence, would have the public believe of them that they have no reason to wonder whether Clinton takes her orders from Obama, or whether, in fact, things are the other way around.

Look at Dianne Feinstein, slapped on the wrist by co-workers who would be as wealthy (and by the same means) as she, for having failed to disclose her interests in military contracts.  And make no mistake: Unless she’d sworn not to accept a penny from her husband’s estate should he die before her, those *were* Feinstein’s investments.  When she married, it became her business, as a member of Congress, to make herself intimately familiar with her spouse’s business dealings.  Maybe she was that way before she got married (and he had to marry her).  Who knows?  Should we care?

Nancy Pelosi knew of her constituents’ desire to have her impeach Bush for them, but she, too, was compromised.  She had to move impeachment “off the table” because the people whose help she’d need during the impeachment had been snookered by (or had colluded with, or had given orders to) the person her constituents were calling “Dummy.” —You know, I find that to be ironic.  Not that so many believed themselves to be smarter than George Bush, but that Nancy Pelosi should find herself being compromised by loyalty: Loyalty, the most outstanding and favored trait of the whole Bush family.

Report this

By djnoll, December 4, 2009 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

It is interesting reading the various postings here because it is just repeating what has been said over and over again for nearly 9 years now:  Bush led us into these wars, people do not believe the 9/11 facts (or fiction if you will), and both parties are corrupt, warmongering sides of the same corporate coin.

Can anyone tell me if there is something we can do that will actually put all this to rest?  How do we bring justice to those families whose loved ones died on 9/11?  How do we bring to justice those who drug us into Iraq with lies while abandoning those fighting in Afghanistan (a military action that had the full support of the American people and the World in 2001, in case you have forgotten.)?  Who will be brave enough to try all those people who are responsible for the devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan over the years - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, the generals, Pelosi, Reid, the majority of Congress since 2001, all the Justice Dept. lawyers who trashed our Constitution so that this travesty could continue, and finally, the American people who voted in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 for the leaders who started this mess, kept it funded, and have not changed one thing about it?  Tell me who and I will be the first one in line to support their efforts in bringing justice to this issue and our troops home.

I hate this war, all of it.  I always have, not because it was not important to find justice for those victims of 9/11/01,  but because it was done in a way that was bound to lead to defeat from day one, and when Bush ordered troops into Iraq, I told anyone who would listen that he was lying and that this was all about a childish ego problem and oil.  Now we reap what we sow, and President Obama must find a way to resolve situations that have no good resolutions.

Bush was right when he said that what he would leave behind would be remembered for generations and would affect American policy for decades to come.  We all knew that it would take at least the first 4 years of any new President’s administration just to figure out what was wrong, and the next 4 years to actually make any headway in correcting it when we went to the polls in 2008.  What we did not truly understand was how compromised our President was in his bid to be elected by his own party and its leaders, all of whom have skeletons that truth would bring to the light of day.  We also did not understand the full extent of the damage done to this nation.  Now we are seeing it for ourselves in rising body counts on the battlefield and here at home.

Answer my questions and create action to change this mess by cleaning out the wound with the truth.  Work together to create change in how we elect our officials, how we govern ourselves at all level of government, and maybe, just maybe, we might stand a fighting chance of surviving and ending this insanity that the Bush Administration has left in its wake.  Otherwise, plan on this truly becoming a 100 year war because that is what the corporations want, and the political parties are willing to go along with it, unless you dry up their money.  Find solutions, do not just rehash everything.  It is time for solutions - debate has ended.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 4, 2009 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

Re: ardee

Your comment:  “I apologize to those with no interest in this feud, but the truth is out there.  This slime trail leaving donkey accused me of a lie, noting an untrue statement on several posts. When I challenged him to cut and paste this stupidity in order to prove his claim he ran away.

My assumption is that he discovered that the statement he attributed to me was actually that of another poster. Then, instead of demonstrating an actual maturity or backbone by admitted his wrong headed assumption, as any mature person might do, he slithered back under his rock.

While I admit to a history of responding in kind to those cretins like he, or the infamous Shrewnonymous, who undoubtedly play together in their sandbox ( litter box more likely), this jackass has a long history of absurdly stupid responses to those who dare disagree, or , as in this case, dare to post what he said and put it in its proper light.

I will make a better effort to ignore the under rock dwelling scum, in the interest of a better forum if not for the fact that he has little if anything to offer. But I will not allow falsehoods to pass unremarked, that only gives them a power they should not have.”


From Sourcewatch:
“During the period between World Wars I and II, the now-defunct Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) developed a list of common rhetorical techniques used for propaganda purposes. Their list included the following:

doublespeak
fear
glittering generalities
name-calling”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda_techniques

A perfect fit.  But for a more personal fit, I’d choose these from the list for you “ardee”, but people can decide for themselves from the list at the link.

* apologise
* big lie
* buzz
* demonizing the opposition
* quoting out of context
* repetition
* straw man
* talking points
* vagueness

Report this

By Talullah, December 4, 2009 at 10:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

re: Samson, December 4 at 4:02 pm #

Why do you suggest that anyone who’d end the war (there is only one war, as far as any soldier is concerned) wait until the next election? 

Imagine members of Congress waking one morning to find that their constituents are like fans at the largest sports stadium, holding up flip cards that spell out “RECALL.”

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, December 4, 2009 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

There is a way that the citizens of the United States can end these wars.  The 2010 elections are coming in less than a year.

We know now that the two parties will only present candidates that support these wars.  Some of the candidates, especially from the Democratic side will lie and pretend to oppose the wars.  But, we now know as a hard and solid fact that elected Democrats to power only continues the wars and their escalation.

So, there are two different ways we could stop these wars in 2010.

One is a broad slate of ‘ant-war’ candidates.  Polls show 70% oppose the wars.  The Democrats have won the last two elections by pretending to oppose the wars.  Its clear the voters want the wars to end.  Therefore, its at least possible that by running hundreds of anti-war candidates in every district across the country that we could win and take control of Congress and end these wars. 

I think that’s possible.  But it requires a major sea-change in how millions of Americans perceive politics. So, I’ve got a Plan B as well.

Americans who oppose these wars need to develop and show political power.  We can do that not just by winning elections ourselves, but by deliberately and obviously causing the Democrats to lose elections.

Picture about 50-70 independent anti-war campaigns. These would be targeted at the CLOSEST House and Senate races where the Democrats are the incumbent (avoiding the tiny handful of actual anti-war representatives).

The goal isn’t to win. The goal of this strategy would be to make it very, very clear to the Democrats that they can not win without the anti-war vote. And to make it very clear that they will not get the anti-war vote as long as they keep supporting these wars.

If six months from now, the Democratic leadership sees the prospects of their losing race after race because of the presence of independent anti-war campaigns in the close elections taking votes from the pro-war Democrats, then you can bet that the Democrats will be coming to us asking ‘What do you want?”  That’s the day we end the wars.

Or, picture this.  A Democratic party that’s reeling from mid-term losses caused by a strong anti-war revolt amongst voters. And Obama sitting in the White House looking at a growing independent, unified antiwar campaign that looks to make him a one-term President.  At that point, Obama’s political calculations will start telling him that he’d better either end the wars are start packing.  That’s also the day the wars will end.

Do not wait on others to start this. The Democrats have corrupted most of the leadership of major anti-war groups and of the Green Party.  Look around your area.  Find a close race.  Start the opposition yourselves.  No one else is going to do it for you.

Report this

By Talullah, December 4, 2009 at 10:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Samson:

It seems obvious that Obama made a deal with the devil, but that doesn’t explain why journalists like Joe Conason fail to report to Dems such things as the fact that Hillary Clinton, by way of her war vote, was invested in that devil, had a hell of a lot riding on the devil’s success.

Why don’t journalists report that Speaker Pelosi was hamstrung as a result of Clinton’s war vote: Pelosi couldn’t impeach Bush without exposing to ridicule and their own impeachments those who—at best—had been snookered by Bush (and who, at worse, were colluding with Bush, maybe even gave to him his instructions).

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, December 4, 2009 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

Lets be perfectly clear about whose wars these have been all along.

The Democrats in the Senate voted unanimously for this war.  The Democrats in the House were almost unanimous, with only Barbara Lee voting no.

The Democrats have voted almost unanimously for every supplemental bill that paid for these wars.

The Democrats have voted almost unanimously for every bloated Pentagon budget of this decade.

Democrats in the Senate have refused every opportunity on all of these bills to stop the bill by filibuster and end the wars.  Watch how the Republicans use the filibuster, then realize that the Democrats could have been doing the same to Bush all along if they had really opposed anything Bush was doing.

Of course, the Democratic propaganda artists like Mr. Conason try to lie and blame this all on Bush and Cheney.  All through some imagined piece of BS that says that what happened years ago at Tora-Bora is somehow relevant to all of this.

One thing that was always clear was that we never needed to control the Afghan government in order to suppress Al-Qaida.  We had the might to bomb any camp, or to send our special forces anywhere we wanted to go.  We never needed to be the government of Afghanistan in order to protect ourselves.

The biggest myth at all, and one that permeates this yet another Democratic pro-war propaganda piece, is that the poorest country on the other side of the world can be a major threat to the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world.  C’mon man!

Report this

By talullah, December 4, 2009 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

It’s not a “legacy” if you’re Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and you voted for it. 

What Conason describes is any war voter’s investment (now, with interest accrued) in a bank named George Bush.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 4, 2009 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

ardee, December 3 at 7:17 pm:
’... I do not seek to defend the Democrats, Bill or Hillary either, but what is the point of refusing to condemn our very worst President in American history, George Walker Bush?’

It’s another dead horse—a particularly well-flogged dead horse, indeed.  I suppose to break the tedium one could point out the remarkable continuity between the policies and actions of Bush and his predecessors, and those of Mr. O, but these have already been noticed pretty well and are no surprise to those who have done a little analysis of ruling-class behavior.  It’s something liberals and progs should give a try sometime so they won’t be so continually shocked by the bad behavior of their great leaders.

Report this

By coco, December 4, 2009 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

Couldn’t of written it better. Basically anyway you look at it you lose. Just the way Bush and his commie party wanted it. Screw things up so bad the next president won’t get anything accomplished because he’ll be to busy correcting and trying to pay for the passed.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 4, 2009 at 7:13 am Link to this comment

Usama bin Laden was on his deathbed, renal failure, when 9-11 was pulled off. His death in Winter 2002-2003 “escaped” him.  Beating this dead horse has served the family Bush and accomplices very well, for over seven years.  And some folk continue to believe the fairy tale that he was involved in 9-11?  Neither of the two kidney transplants, one in a US military hospital, took hold. If you pay his folk enough, they will take you to his grave.  But, you have to promise not to publicize the info, even if you have enough money - - .

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 4, 2009 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

Paid pimps, other hirelings and even worse, misguided
volunteers, repeatedly enter what appear
superficially to be personal vendettas,  misusing
comment opportunities to distract and induce boredom
of the genuinely interested.  Amazing how six such
people can tie up a network.  Such has happened at
the national level in the US Congress for over thirty
years, as the CIA was overtaking both houses, and
infiltrating all state governments.  This, while
killing off our youth under the guise of wars
required to protect „american interests.“  Meanwhile,
cheap-fast-foods, spiked with toxic chemicals,
industrial waste in drinking water, and poisonous
„vaccines“ have undermined the health of Americans.
While TV has undermined the mentality of adults,
children and youth, predicted by psychiatrist Eric
Wertheimer in 1968.  Is it significant that some of
the high-level-NAZIs in the US administration are
attempting a permanent change of station to Dubai and
the Saudi area ?  Do they plan a US Taxpayer bailout
for the billions in debt of the Saudis ?  Does the
Bilderberger group have another „sock-it-to-em“
planned for the US Citizenry, Jan-Feb 2010, that will
pull the final plug from the US dollar?

Report this

By fosforos, December 4, 2009 at 6:47 am Link to this comment

Joe Conason talks of “the
inexplicable decision by officials of
the previous administration to allow
Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-
Zawahiri and other ranking leaders
of al-Qaida to escape from
Afghanistan to Pakistan in
December 2001.”  At the time one
of my cousins asked me “Will they
catch bin Laden?”  My answer: “He
will never be caught.  He knows too
much.” Only those who swallow
whole the official li[n]e about 9/11
can find the decision to let bin
Laden escape “inexplicable.”

Report this

By nickmammano, December 4, 2009 at 5:17 am Link to this comment

Is this the same guy who was awarded the Nobel Peace prize? 

What a laugh.

He joins the ranks of other warmongers such as Kissinger, Begin and Arafat whose selection has made a mockery of that award.

Report this

By ardee, December 4, 2009 at 3:52 am Link to this comment

Your comment: “Outraged posts and runs away,
free to lie another day.”

Are you seriously that infantile…..lol.

I apologize to those with no interest in this feud, but the truth is out there.
This slime trail leaving donkey accused me of a lie, noting an untrue statement on several posts. When I challenged him to cut and paste this stupidity in order to prove his claim he ran away.

My assumption is that he discovered that the statement he attributed to me was actually that of another poster. Then, instead of demonstrating an actual maturity or backbone by admitted his wrong headed assumption, as any mature person might do, he slithered back under his rock.

While I admit to a history of responding in kind to those cretins like he, or the infamous Shrewnonymous, who undoubtedly play together in their sandbox ( litter box more likely), this jackass has a long history of absurdly stupid responses to those who dare disagree, or , as in this case, dare to post what he said and put it in its proper light.

I will make a better effort to ignore the under rock dwelling scum, in the interest of a better forum if not for the fact that he has little if anything to offer. But I will not allow falsehoods to pass unremarked, that only gives them a power they should not have.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 4, 2009 at 3:02 am Link to this comment

Allen Dulles secreted four hundred NAZI scientists
into the US, to include Werner von Braun who should
have been tried at the Nuremburg Trials, and hired
NAZI SS General Gehlin to reconstruct the OSS into
the CIA. General Gehlin staffed the top positions
with NAZI officers and sympathizers.  Many hundreds
more NAZIs were secreted into the US, while CIA and
NAZIs in Germany and the US “doctored” public records
to support the hundreds of falsified passports and
family histories.  GHWBushSr had taken over the CIA
before JFKSr was murdered, verified by letter from
him to J.E.Hoover just after the JFKSr murder. 
Documents of the US Congress verify the Bush family
as financial supporters of the NAZI regime.  Similar
documents have been used to compile extensive
histories of their “clan,” and their financial
relatives.  The Washington Post released numerous
articles with pictures indicating GHWBushSr was in
control during the Reagan administration, and was
responsible for sexual escapades of an abnormal
nature.  The remains of the USofA reflect the
workings of the NAZI leadership since 1948,
essentially the leadership of the family Bush.  Also
reflected is the naïve´ dumbidity of Americans, who
have “trusted their government,” while enjoying fast
foods and good sex TV. 

Now, the NAZI - types in control wish to bestow their
brand of democracy onto the oil-rich territories of
the Near East, eastern Europe, and the EU.  Excepting
the Saudis of course, who have long-standing
contracts with the family Bush.  The “american” oil
empirists, essentially one family, are very grateful
for the thousands of American troops that are being
killed while furthering genocide and re-population of
said “Moslem” lands.  Our “canon-fodder” youth are
called “Heroes,” while the remains of their bodies
are buried in a marvelous “national” cemetary with a
marvelous white cross marking each grave?  Is this
all not simply marvelous?

Report this

By Marc Schlee, December 4, 2009 at 12:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There’s nothing “inexplicable” about the decision to let Osama escape.  That would have ended the war and made the invasion of Iraq unnecessary.


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2009 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

Re: ardee

Your comment: “ardee says: screw you jackass….You said it…sheesh what a maroon.

You said billions, I cited your own words retard.”

Yes, I DID say BILLIONS because that is the case, however I DID NOT say “Islamic World”.  You did, there’s a reason I didn’t say Islamic World, since that would be skewing the truth, LIKE YOU DID.

Your comment: “Outraged posts and runs away,
free to lie another day.”

Are you seriously that infantile…..lol.

Report this

By Chandler, December 3, 2009 at 8:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After all these comments, here we sit, letting them do more to us and innocent people all over the world.  Evidently the Bush family of traitors has gotten to Obama, for if he did not escalate the troops he would suddenly find himself in a limo riding thorugh the downtown streets of Dallas for a replay of the assassination.  Knowing the history of the Bush family, their financing of Hitler, and all the many devious sell-outs of this country and its Constitution, and the 20 years we spent under Bush/Clinton/Bush, it is obvious Obama has betrayed his campaign promises so he can be accepted into Bush lair.  We Americans are screwed royally, and our children are going to pay a huge price for the Bush’s tearing this country apart piece by piece, yeara by year.  All this war was about was getting Saddam, and building the pipeline.  The US Embassy in Iraq was not built so we could leave it.  We do not ever intend to leave this area of the world.  Americans are nothing but sheep, and it is so sad we’ve let our own government kill millions of innocent babies, women, children.  Our soldiers do not even think twice about killing innocent people.
Why must we have war?  911 was a hoax, and, once you know this fact, it alters everything.  I am so disappointed in Obama it ain’t funny.  Betrayed and deceived once again.

Report this

By tres, December 3, 2009 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Outraged, December 3 at 7:41 am #
“Democrats gave Bush authorization to go to war UNDER FALSE PRETENSES, did you not hear.

THEY LIED, PEOPLE DIED.”

Mr. Outraged,

It is people like you, who make the situation hopeless.
Under false pretenses? And you believe that?!

The Establishments are all in this together. Small people like you are being sucked dry.

Report this

By purplewolf, December 3, 2009 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

We have Dicko Cheney(chainsaw) to blame for helping to create the Taliban in 1991 in the first place. I say make him and his warmonger cronies pay for all the expenses wasted on hunting this elusive invisible enemy and the total costs of these senseless wars and the medical they keep denying our soldiers, after all they are the ones with all the money.

Sending in more soldiers shows us the insanity that America showed the world in its insane quest for Geronimo remains alive and well to this day.

Report this

By ardee, December 3, 2009 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Outraged posts and runs away,
free to lie another day.

Outraged and outrageous says…..

We also know that the Saudi’s along with Iran (at least from articles I’ve read) have BOTH funneled BILLIONS of dollars into these entities, both entities spew a message of hatred and supposed purity.  One of their mantras is to GLOBALIZE their cause, this is a threat, not only the U.S. but the world.

and then, mere hours later:

Where did you get this quote, “We cannot abandon the poor Afghanis”, and this one “The Islamic world supports both with billions”?
I see that nowhere on this thread. 

ardee says: screw you jackass….You said it…sheesh what a maroon.

You said billions, I cited your own words retard.

Once again the Mr. Magoo of Truthdig:

It needs to utmost in our minds that there is a difference between EXTREMIST Muslims, and traditional Muslims and also that this IS NOT a war against the Afghan people.  Which btw, I’ve seen very little concern for….. some say, “just leave” and let’s say we did, What about the Afghan People?

Thus my citing of “the poor Afghanis” in response to your own words, long forgotten I guess

 

Oh and Taliban has never ,ever, not once expressed any global intent. They work only for their own region.

For those actually having a brain I ask, why are suddenly Saudi Arabia, Wahabis, and Iran, Shia, both supporting polar opposites in the Yemeni conflict, linked as allies in Outrageously forgetful’s mind? Is it possible that Iran pours billions into Sunni causes..how very philanthropic, but not actual reality.

Report this

By FRTothus, December 3, 2009 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment

While this and so many other articles give the appearance of a vigorous debate, the faux-debate allows no discussion whatsoever concerning the glaring incongruties around the official 9/11 cover story.  Here, as was the case in all US wars of aggression (which is to say, all US wars), the imperial ends are never questioned, principled opposition was never given voice, but instead it is the means and only the means employed by the invader and would-be conquerer that is deemed “fit to print” and is what passes for allowable thought.  As far as I and a growing number of others are concerned, 9/11 was a US false-flag operation.  Any article that begins with any questionable assumption (which describes exactly what the official cover story is), any conclusions that stem from that which has yet to be proven is therefore invalid.

“In a media universe where you’re likely to find right-wing conservatives on ABC, Fox, or NPR, the facts don’t matter; only the framing. And in the hands of biased pundits posing as objective journalists, the framing is always going to be the same: pro-military, pro-government, and pro-war.”
(David Potorti)

“The men and women who enlist in this country’s military [should] be told the truth that they are not protecting the United States, they are and always have been protecting corporate interests.”
(Chante Wolf)

“The media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly.”
(Noam Chomsky)

“The modern susceptibility to conformity and obedience to authority indicates that the truth endorsed by authority is likely to be accepted as such by a majority of people, who are innately obedient to authority. This obedience-truth will then become a consensus-truth accepted by many individuals unable to stand alone against the majority. In this way, the truth promulgated by the propaganda system - however irrational - stands a good chance of becoming the consensus, and may come to seem self-evident common sense.”
(David Edwards)

“America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defense of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for. Rome consistently supported the rich against the poor in all foreign communities that fell under her sway; and, since the poor, so far, have always and everywhere been far more numerous than the rich, Rome’s policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number.”
(Arnold Toynbee, historian)

“One of the Iraq war’s major casualties is the credibility of the American media. Nobody takes it seriously.”
(BBC World News commentator)

“I don’t know why we think, just because we’re mighty, that we have the right to try to substitute might for right.”
(Senator Wayne Morse, 1964, as he voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution)

“American capitalism, based as it is on exploitation of the poor, with its fundamental motivation in personal greed, simply cannot survive without force.”
(Philip Agee, CIA Diary)

“Americans will quarrel over how, who, or what to rescue or save, but the idea that the nation ought to be off doing it is challenged only by a few.”
(Nicholas Von Hoffman)

“Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
(Justice Louis Brandeis)

Report this

By ardee, December 3, 2009 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment

talullah, December 3 at 4:30 pm #

Skipping a few things, aren’t we?

Overlooking a few things aren’t we? Things such as Clinton didn’t invade, Bush did. Clinton’s people didn’t go to the UN with a bullshit story, Bushs’ did.

I do not seek to defend the Democrats, Bill or Hillary either, but what is the point of refusing to condemn our very worst President in American history, George Walker Bush?

Report this

By the worm, December 3, 2009 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

We all knew of the disastrous Bush policies and their devastating effects on the
nation. We knew we needed a leader (correct-minded, persuasive, etc.) and we
supported and elected Obama, because we needed leadership to turn the ship
from a devastating course and decline. Obama has simply continued Bush
policies. Our first hint that we was not going to ‘take them on’ came when he
refused to pursue Bush-era crimes (war, wiretapping, justice department, etc.).
It was as if he wanted to pretend that nothing happened during the last eight
years. Well, by ignoring it, he lost the opportunity to paint the picture the
public needed to see and understand the situation - a nation on the brink -
and, by ignoring the previous administrations mal-administration and
disastrous policies, he set himself up to be the ‘one who did this to us’. Why?
To some extent, because he wanted to (or was unable to) face reality. He’s
eating the reality now and now he is to blame. A politically inept or tone deaf
leadership from the beginning.

Report this

By talullah, December 3, 2009 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment

Skipping a few things, aren’t we?

When Nancy Pelosi refused to impeach Bush-Cheney, she accepted full responsibility for this mess, no matter what it turned out to include. 

Then, too, there’s the little matter of the pro-war vote of Ex-Senator, now Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton: That vote was the result of Clinton’s year-long, in-depth examination of the same non-existent evidence that would’ve impeached Bush-Cheney.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2009 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

Re: ardee

Your comment: “The Islamic world supports both with billions”  ( why Saudi Arabia would support terrorism is a question remaining unanswered but it makes for such good propaganda,doesnt it?)

“We cannot abandon the poor Afghanis”
( who hate us more each passing day. Rather than abandon them we choose to murder them in droves,huh?)”

Are you claiming the Saudi’s weren’t providing funds to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, calling it “good propaganda”?  They were, we KNOW this.

Where did you get this quote, “We cannot abandon the poor Afghanis”, and this one “The Islamic world supports both with billions”?
I see that nowhere on this thread.  Are you quoting yourself?  No one (at least aside from yourself) have said anything about the “Islamic World”.  Funny how you CREATE those leaps, JUST LIKE THE TALIBAN.

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, December 3, 2009 at 10:13 am Link to this comment

While it’s all water under the bridge, it’s interesting to think that if the airlines, the FBI, and CIA had done their jobs, 9/11 would never have happened!!!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 3, 2009 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

Outraged, December 3 at 7:41 am:
’... Democrats gave Bush authorization to go to war UNDER FALSE PRETENSES, did you not hear. ...’

Oh, come on.  Everyone who wanted to know knew Bush was lying, including the Democrats who voted for his wars.

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, December 3, 2009 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

Bush focused on Iraq because that was a war he and his generals knew they could win because Iraq compared to Afghanistan is a civilized country and civilized countries know when to surrender.  Afghanistan, surprisingly, has never won a war outright, but rather through attrition and insurgency.  That is obama’s hope to get to a point where there is a semblance of stability and then begin the withdrawal.  However, like Iraq, a substantial US force will remain to provide a logistics foci.  The future enemy will be Iran, once they secure nuclear capability.  Surrounding Iran with bases in Iraq and Afghanistan is just simple military strategy not to mention Pakistan.

Report this

By bozhidar balkas, vancouver, December 3, 2009 at 9:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

At least conason calls US entry into afgh’n an “invasion”, but refrains from calling it an aggression and to be quite accurate-adequate, an aggression against innocent pashtuns.

Who, according to his tacit implication, cheered US invasion.
I am puzzled by this silent implication. To my knowledge, leaders [at least]of an occupied people seldom if ever gladhand an occupation.

Actually, they violently oppose it.

Once an aggression had been perped, there no longer is a win-win result available.
Win for US and a win for pashtuns was available only before US aggression.

And, i educe, that US intent had been to obtain a win-loss result! Kids, this is not an O’s or bushes ‘war’.
The time has come to stop beating a around bushes and Bush or obama.

This is an aggression. US had carried out at least 30 major aggressions; none of which had been depicted as such in US history books.

In any interethnic or interimperial conflict, there are only two solutions availble: via negotiations or warfare.

Humane solution wld be best, of course, but the stronger side ensures that that is not even mentioned let alone implemented.

And a humane solution for US was available by not ever invading pashtunstan. The hunt for seven, or is it 700 ‘terrorists’, cld have been carried out by other means.

As an aside i cld suggest that if any afghani or pashtun knew of the arab plan to attack the two towers, s/he wld be terrified and wld certainly inform US of it.

The attack on the towers had been just about most stupid and strategicly useless act one cld perp.
And we do not know that cia,fbi, and gov’t didn’t know about it!
tnx

Report this
thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, December 3, 2009 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

“the vital necessity of victory in Afghanistan”

Gatekeeping rubbish.

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

“the events that led us to this moment”

Yes, let’s examine those “events”, shall we?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/barry-jennings-speaks/

“If there was any chance that the perpetrators of Sept. 11 could be found in those mountains, then maximum force should have been deployed as rapidly as possible.”

The “perpetrators” were not in those mountains, but at least their bat cave weapons lab was bombed out of commission, right?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-rest-is-silence/

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, December 3, 2009 at 6:37 am Link to this comment

The Author Wrote:

“So if we spend another $30 billion a year to send in additional troops, roughly $3 billion will end up in the coffers of the Taliban, far more than it needs to buy the ammunition and explosives that kill our soldiers.”

Let me state that I have served in Afghanistan and that I am absolutely no fan of this war. While I certainly applaud the author for discussing the issue of bribery, this statement is grossly misleading, so much so that it rivals Fox News.

This statement assumes that the entire 30 billion is being spent on logisitical expenditures. Plus, for this to be accurate, every dollar spent on logistics would have to be spent on the private Afghan shipping companies within the borders of Afghanistan with nothing left over for the other costs asscociated with not only internatinal logisitics, but the entire war.

So what does that 30 billion include? Salaries, production costs, international logisitics, contractors, construction, food, supplies, and research to name a few. We can discuss the merits or demerits of the war’s expenditures and the accompanying inefficiencies. I welcome it. But this kind of manipulation makes me never want to come back to Truthdig just as I refuse to lend legitimacy to the likes of Fox News.

Again, the business practices going on in Afghanistan are highly dubious and the author is right to point them out. That said, to create the impression that 1/10th of every dollar spent is funding the Taliban does nothing more than illsutrate the author’s gross ingorance or bias. If Truthdig and its contributing authors want to retain any credibility, Truthdig should read the articles it chooses to highlight a bit more carefully before it promotes such glaring inaccuracy.

Its called journalism, Truthdig. Your founders are supposed to be well versed in it. Either lend this site some editorial integrity or go cozy up to Rupert Murdoch in the cigar bar. Truthdig should dump Joe Conason and quit giving a platform to what can only be described as lazy journalism by authors who would better placed in remedial 8th grade math than on a national or international stage.

Report this

By glider, December 3, 2009 at 6:06 am Link to this comment

The problem with “Vietnamization” is that you end up pitting courageous true believer warriors against propped up cowardly bought out trainees who will bolt the minute the going gets tough.  We should be asking what are the examples for a successful execution of this strategy?  However, I don’t think Obama is concerned about this problem as IMO he has no intention of conducting anything but a symbolic withdrawl by the time of the next election.  He merely has to present the image of progress up until then.  Understanding this speechmiester requires reading between the lines and enables one to understand that “starting to withdraw” is an oratorical manipulation.  Remember troops can be replaced with mercenaries, and micro withdraws trumpeted to present an image of a successful outcome.  If the Taliban is 40% of the population I have a hard time imagining a Western installed corrupt regime standing the test of time in their society.

Report this

By johannes, December 3, 2009 at 5:32 am Link to this comment

He is working along the old scènario, nothing new here, only with an new saying YES WE CAN, and even the small country’s like myn, don’t try to stop him, but go with him in the grave digging business.

Report this
anaman51's avatar

By anaman51, December 3, 2009 at 4:41 am Link to this comment

Does anyone remember when this was also the plan to get out of Vietnam? It was called “Vietnamization,” and it involved the pumping up of the ARVN forces (who didn’t want to be there in the first place) and giving them loads of training and mountains of arms and ammunition, aircraft, and whatever else they needed to defeat the Communist North. Then the U.S. Armed Forces could back out with “dignity” with the proposal that the hopelessly outclassed Southern forces could somehow overcome the NVA.

The time will come when we will once again see the last of the American advisers and their families being airlifted off the roof of the embassy in a desperate scramble to get out before it’s overrun.

You blew it, Obama. You should have brought the troops home immediately. From now on, the dead are on your butcher’s bill.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2009 at 3:41 am Link to this comment

Re: LostHills

“Bush was never a dictator. Almost every single Democrat voted to give him authorization to go to war.”

Bullshit.  Bush WAS dictatorial.  He also supported the American Taliban, whatever he wanted to do… he did.  Additionally, many…. including myself wonder who was REALLY running the show during this blantant display of ideology and corruption we call “the Bush years”. 

Democrats gave Bush authorization to go to war UNDER FALSE PRETENSES, did you not hear.

THEY LIED, PEOPLE DIED.

You attempt to put VICTIMS of the lies in the same boat as the PERPETRAITORS.  The fact is, your “facts” don’t hold water.

Report this

By ardee, December 3, 2009 at 3:31 am Link to this comment

It is puzzling to read the defenses of President Obama’s decision to escalate what will most probably be a disastrous military campaign in Afghanistan.

“It was Bushs’ fault”
( yeah, so, its not then its now and mistakes can be rectified not enhanced)

“The Taliban is in league with AlQaeda”
(makes for a great point, also makes for an unsupported and unsubstantiated assumption. Even if once true when ( not if, I think) they reassume power why would they realign with a group, all one hundred of them still active in that nation, when that would bring more censure , scrutiny, sanctions and possible reprisals? Further, when Taliban take over Afghanistan they will have a myriad of problems to solve, including the antipathy of most of the rest of the population towards their rule)

“The Islamic world supports both with billions”
( why Saudi Arabia would support terrorism is a question remaining unanswered but it makes for such good propaganda,doesnt it?)

“We cannot abandon the poor Afghanis”
( who hate us more each passing day. Rather than abandon them we choose to murder them in droves,huh?)

I agree with ChaoticGood that this is, indeed, madness.

War on insurgencies and the imposition of our will through armed might, some supposed progressives here seem to have forgotten, is never a solution but an enhancement of the problem.

Report this

By Commune115, December 3, 2009 at 2:56 am Link to this comment

We don’t need to just examine Bush and Cheney, but US imperial history in general. We’ve been invading, occupying and re-arranging countries since the war with Mexico.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2009 at 1:38 am Link to this comment

Re: mrfreeze

Good post, I agree.  It’s a terrible situation and very few WANT war, but the reality remains.  These are the hard choices, the grievious truths which need to be addressed and the difficult decisions which need to be made.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda have had their dealings with each other.  We also know that the Saudi’s along with Iran (at least from articles I’ve read) have BOTH funneled BILLIONS of dollars into these entities, both entities spew a message of hatred and supposed purity.  One of their mantras is to GLOBALIZE their cause, this is a threat, not only the U.S. but the world.  We’ve seen them take credit for terrorist attacks here in the U.S. but also in other countries.  They call it “Global Jihad”.  If you consider what they have and continue carry out upon the people of Afghanistan, it is obvious that they are very serious.

It needs to utmost in our minds that there is a difference between EXTREMIST Muslims, and traditional Muslims and also that this IS NOT a war against the Afghan people.  Which btw, I’ve seen very little concern for….. some say, “just leave” and let’s say we did, What about the Afghan People?  These same screamers are saying, “Why don’t we do something about Zelaya?”, Why did “we” allow this country or that to endure this or that tragedy or occupation of evil?  It’s bogus.

It has to be.  We are being misled, but not by Pres. Obama.  No, I simply do not believe that.

Report this
LostHills's avatar

By LostHills, December 3, 2009 at 12:26 am Link to this comment

Bush was never a dictator. Almost every single Democrat voted to give him
authorization to go to war. When the voters turned both houses of congress over
to the Democrats in 2006, they did not revoke that authorization or withhold
funding. Obama could have ordered an immediate withdrawal of US forces from
Iraq and Afghanistan in January. Could have and should have. The war belongs to
him now, and it belongs to his party, who are supporting him. It’s time to retire
Bushthebogeyman. He’s gone. Americans have to regain ownership of their
country by voting every one of these bastards out of office. Both parties. You have
to start protesting in the streets of your own community, and you have to vote
against all incumbents without regard to party.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, December 3, 2009 at 12:04 am Link to this comment

There has been more “analysis” of President Obama’s decision in this 1 single day, than in all the 8 incompetent military years of the last administration. It is amazing to me how many experts, pundits, x-generals, x-politicians, x-everyone and the MSM (plus all the armchair warriors) have added their opinions to this grim situation, AND YET….these same people and institutions were relatively SILENT for the last 8 years.

One of the best examples of my point is the now vogue argument regarding the financing of the war. Really? You mean this is something NEW? So, the last administration ran the wars for free, right?

Equally ridiculous is the fact that critics of the president are utterly opposed to spending one red cent on our serious domestic problems: a broken health care system, a rotting infrastructure, an ineffective educational system and countless other problems. I heard one Southern Senator justify military spending by asking “what’s the cost of FREEDOM? When confronted with the fact that the last president borrowed like mad to finance the wars, he didn’t want to discuss the issue. So it’s ok to spend on freedom as long as it’s military spending, not domestic investment.

So what’s it going to be? Will this President (who I consider to be an honest and intelligent leader) be given a chance to finish the Frankenstein created by his incompetent predecessors? He campaigned on this particular issue and it now seems that everyone is suffering from selective memory-loss.

I’ve just grown tired of the nano-uber analysis of every little thing President Obama does especially after the utter incompetence of the Media and apathy of the American people during the last administration.

Report this

By P. T., December 2, 2009 at 11:50 pm Link to this comment

As best I can figure it, the plan now seems to be to try to buy off the warlords in Afghanistan the way George W. Bush tried to buy off the Sunni insurgents.

Report this

By ChaoticGood, December 2, 2009 at 11:38 pm Link to this comment

Obama has been delt a bad hand.  No matter how he plays it he loses.  The decision is one that has no better hope of “winning” than any other, but it can blunt the effect of Republican whining about the “soft on defense” shibboleth that they drag out for every Democrat. 

At least, if our forces can kill or capture some Taliban and if some “political” movement occurs then Obama can at least say that he was not “soft on defense” and if there is an attack in America by terrorists, he is innoculated against the “its all your fault” argument.

This whole thing is nothing but theatre for the home folks because there is no way we will modernize Afganistan in 1 year.  That is laughable.

It would be comedy if we were not going to lose American lives just to prove that Democrats are strong on defense too.

This is madness…

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook