The United States Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat

Email Print posted by MRFred 04/19/2008 10:36:15 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit

( Or THE REPUBLICANS F-'ED UP THE WAR ON TERROR ! )

I seem to recall many blustery statments to the effect that

 The Democrats have no plan to defeat al Queda !

The Democrats do not deserve national leadership! 

So, 6 and a half years after 9-11, innumerable less than apocalyptic  "plots"uncovered, hyper-exaggerated terror alerts , bungled prosecutions of  homegrown "terrorists" $10.5 billion for military, economic, and development to Pakistan and finally,1 Trillion dollars and 5 years of fighting them over there so we wont to fight them over here it should come as no surprise:

The United States Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and
(The United States Lacks a Comprehensive Plan )to Close the ( terrorist) Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

Duh. 

<The latest Republican " new idea":elite terrorist hunting unit deployed by the Office of the President. Unfortunately in the wrong country...but effort counts for something .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Let's review a few points...

  • The President of the United States (R) has primary responsibility to ensure that his national security strategy is carried out effectively.
  • The President of the United States (R) has the authority to task executive branch departments to develop comprehensive plans that use all elements of U.S. power—diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support—toward meeting U.S. national security goals.

Based on the GAO this is the end result of almost 7 years of the war on "terror":

  • No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), called for by an independent commission (2004), and mandated by congressional legislation (2007)
  • Congress created the National Counter-terrorism Center (NCTC) in 2004 specifically to develop comprehensive plans to combat terrorism. To date the National Security Council (NSC), NCTC, nor other executive branch departments have developed a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power—diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support—called for by the various national security strategies and Congress
  • Since 2002, the U.S. embassy in Pakistan has had no Washington-supported, comprehensive plan to combat terrorism and close the terrorist safe haven in the FATA( Federally Administered Tribal Areas)
  • 2007 NIE and 2008 Annual Threat Assessment state that al Qaeda has regenerated its attack capability and secured a safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA.
  • FATA as a location for training new terrorist operatives for attacks ( known as "over there" )in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and the United States ( Over here).
  • 2008 DNI Annual Threat Assessment and other sources have concluded that the resurgence of al Qaeda terrorists on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan now pose a preeminent threat to U.S. national security.

I can only guess that Bush thought these things were voluntary or part of some faith based program. (If the recommendations where to ignore environmental laws ...Bush would be all over that.)

The argument is that the Republicans are the party of nation security because they have more experience...blah blah blah.

That appears to be true. Republicans  have more experience:

  • Ignoring Congressional directives, 
  • Neglecting actual security threats and
  • Bungling the foreign relations aspect of our national security requirements
than the Democrats.  They are also lousy marksmen. Right Dick?

The fact is Republicans put on a great show in regard to national defense. They pass laws with tough titles like the "Defend America Act" and make big speeches about "supporting the troops" and" accomplishing missions". However when it it comes time to execute...nada.

At least they all wear flag pins.

< Hillary is watching us.... | Scarborough campaigning for McCain? >
 Display:
The United States Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat | 37 comments (37 topical, 0 hidden)
Link (none / 0)

to the GAO report.

Opening paragraph.

"The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA. Since 2002, the United States relied principally on the Pakistan military to address U.S. national security goals. Of the approximately $5.8 billion the United States provided for efforts in the FATA and border region from 2002 through 2007, about 96 percent reimbursed Pakistan for military operations there. According to the Department of State, Pakistan deployed 120,000 military and paramilitary forces in the FATA and helped kill and capture hundreds of suspected al Qaeda operatives; these efforts cost the lives of approximately 1,400 members of Pakistan’s security forces. However, GAO found broad agreement, as documented in the National Intelligence Estimate, State, and embassy documents, as well as Defense officials in Pakistan, that al Qaeda had regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA." 

So much for "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here". 

by z1p101 on 04/19/2008 11:34:31 AM EST

Hmmm (none / 0)
I am not afraid of Al Qaeda, because the "Al Qaeda" threat is not what we think it is. Bush tries to make Al Qaeda into the new International Soviet, as if it were a highly centralized, and powerful organization seeking to undermine Western governments.

 NYET! Al Qaeda is not an organization so much as it now symbolizes an ideology, and American actions overseas, as even American agencies admit, have made the ideology more powerful. Bush masking the threat of terrorism behind "they hate our freedoms"...sorry to break to Bush, but Bush hates your freedom more than Al Qaeda does (Patriot Act, monitoring of phone calls, anti-gay marriage, anti-choice, etc.) All Al Qaeda is, is an anti-imperialist organization, with an extremist Islamic ideology. That's why Al Qaeda ia a threat, it threatens the hegemony of American power in the Middle East. Unless Americans get real about the Al Qaeda threat, the US will never have a plan against Al Qaeda, you cannot fight what is not there*.

*Before I get trolled, what I mean is, a coherent, competent organization.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 04/19/2008 11:49:49 AM EST

Shh!!! (none / 0)
We know. It's called troll bait.

by z1p101 on 04/19/2008 03:19:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama's Comprehensive Plan to Battle al Qaeda (none / 0)
Barack Obama went to the Middle East to explain that America’s terrorist hunting days are over.
joe camel

Using a pair of camels to demonstrate to the natives, Obama told the crowd that when he becomes preseident, America would be represented by the submissive camel, while the terrorists would be represented by the dominate camel.
hoosier camel! 
Since Barack Obama believes that withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should have started way back in 2007, he plans to make up for lost time in Jan 2009, by bringing everyone home in a single day.

Liberals are saying, forget about withdrawal from Iraq, America should leave the entire Middle East.

It’s pretty hard to argue with that logic. Because if America will abandon an ally who is battling al Qaeda in Iraq, why not abandon an ally who is battling al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Kuwait or Qatar or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?

Obama is so confident of victory in November, that he’s already been honing his inaugural address:
“Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by crack, disciplined by MTV, proud of our ipods--and very willing to witness and permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall not pay any price, nor bear any burden, nor meet any hardship, nor support any friend, nor oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

by KenTX on 04/19/2008 04:06:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
THE REPUBLICANS FUCKED UP THE WAR ON TERROR (none / 0)
s that all you've got? A couple of far left columnists and outright lies? Ive got the GAO, NIE , and US intelligence agencies  saying the same thing.

  THE REPUBLICANS FUCKED UP THE WAR ON TERROR !

Like I said, Big talk...big show

Make no mistake: The United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts. Sept 11, 2001

We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism...From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.   Sept 20 2001

our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, June 1 2001

 "It's important that we show resolve and determination to protect ourselves, deny al-Qa'ida safe haven and support young democracies Bush Sep 9, 2007 

 No action:

GAO found broad agreement, as documented in the National Intelligence Estimate, State, and embassy documents, as well as Defense officials in Pakistan, that al Qaeda had regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA.

What about regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven don't you understand?

Good try at absurdly dishonest spin. Please. Battling al Queda ? Thats rich...if they are,someone has too, our current function is to provide an Iraq police force and indirect foreign aide to Iran to establish a complementary regime in Iraq. Good job neo-dumb asses.

Better get a bigger flag pin.

by MRFred on 04/19/2008 06:20:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Contradiction (none / 0)

You have a contradiction in your logic and argument:

" THE REPUBLICANS FUCKED UP THE WAR ON TERROR"

So the Republicans have fucked up their own war which they defined and made up? How can they? There is no set definition on what the so called "War on Terror" is, there is no set definition of what they even mean by terrorism. You cannot attack the Republicans on this because there is nothing to attack, the "War on Terror" is so fluid in definition, or lack there of, that you really cannot attack the Republicans on it. You are buying into their spin by using their own rhetoric. Not only that, you have bought into the discourse that this war can be fought through military means, which justifies Republican use of the national security card.
 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 04/19/2008 06:46:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Crushed by the wheels Fred (none / 0)
You over thinking this a bit. Quite a lot actually.

    So the Republicans have fucked up their own war which they defined and made up?

Yes. They "created" it, planned it ,executed it and ultimately blew it. I can't think of a better way to refute Republican use of the national security card than through there own incompetence and , incidentally,use their own spin to do it.

by MRFred on 04/19/2008 07:10:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You assume... (none / 0)
You assume too much, you assume that their goal is to "win". I argue, no you must agree that their trump card against the Democrats is the National-Security card. How else to perpetually use that card? No better way than to create a undefinable, but highly emotive and political term such as the impossible "War on Terror". If I put "too much into it" its because you don't, so I have to make up for the lack of analysis. You assume that this war is to win...I have no such illusions.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 04/20/2008 01:29:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for your concern (none / 0)

 

you assume that their goal is to "win"

Ok you got me, the goal is to lose the election? Who knew.

I argue, no you must agree that their trump card against the Democrats is the National-Security card.

 Uh...I said that before, but thanks for reminding me.

If I put "too much into it" its because you don't, so I have to make up for the lack of analysis. You assume that this war is to win...I have no such illusions.

You need to revisit the whole thread...the point is the election...not the war. The war, after the defeat of Iraqi army in 2003 ,is and was "unwinable". It is unrelated to the overall counter terrorism actions to admit as much the Republicans ensure electoral defeat in 2008. It must be perpetuated until after the election to preserve that line of attack against the Democrats.

Thanks anyway but don't help me anymore, Ok?

by MRFred on 04/20/2008 09:55:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
English...understand it? (none / 0)

What I meant by "win" was not the election but the war, this war is not being faught to win. Reference, Wells novel, 1984, having a perpetual war, with a symbolic figurehead that can never be caught, subversive, and "evil" riles the masses all the time. The new "Emmanuel Goldstein", and the new Eurasia.

 "You need to revisit the whole thread...the point is the election...not the war."

Its like trying to seperate the Hydrogen from the oxygen in water, you cannot discuss the two without making both irrelevant. The election and war go hand in hand, the war is part of America's body politic.

"The war, after the defeat of Iraqi army in 2003 ,is and was "unwinable". It is unrelated to the overall counter terrorism actions to admit as much the Republicans ensure electoral defeat in 2008."

It is unwinable, and it is not like the US has tried terribly hard to win it either. Iraq is unrelated to the "counter-terrorism&quo t; actions, no it is related, it is counter-productive to the war of ideologies that the US is actually fighting.

Either the US is terribly gullible and stupid by invading Iraq and staying there.

-or-

The War in Iraq and the "War on Terror" are not wars fought for the United States as a nation but rather for American capital, as most wars are.
 

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 04/20/2008 12:00:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure... (none / 0)

 after these comments

What I meant by "win" was not the election but the war, this war is not being faught to win

you cannot discuss the two without making both irrelevant.

 
the next logical question is, do you speak it?

I'm not sure what we are discussing here other than we both agree that the iraq War is counter-productive. 

In the context of  counter terrorism activities,  which logically includes countering extremist ideology..oh, never mind.

Listen, I haven't missed your point but your argument is bit more esoteric, abstruse really, than a very large portion of the voters are able or willing to grasp. 

It's too late to redefine the argument  now ,namely, what we are fighting and the political motivations behind it. That ship has already sailed. The Republicans have spent 6 and 1/2 years conflating 9-11, Iraq and and all the other nonsense in regard to Islam, religion  our freedoms, and democracy into the " Global War on Terror." 

A few George Orwell quotes isn't going to change that.

Once you show them its all bullshit of the highest order, hanging with their own rope so to speak, you can redefine the argument.


by MRFred on 04/20/2008 01:07:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Re: (none / 0)
@MRFred:

I do not see any problems with my use of semantics, but I want to avoid a stupid flame war based on that banality.

We disagree on a more fundamental issue, here it is:

You use GOP rhetoric, and propaganda to attack the GOP, which is impossible due to the nature of the rhetoric.

Every time you attack the GOP on Iraq, because they have not actually defined what they are fighting they can change the argument in such a way to subvert your original argumentation. Notice out Ken when on the defensive appeals to red herrings like decapitation, or human rights abuses done to Iraqi's. The United States in the original conception of the Iraq War is there to protect American lives, not Iraqi. Since the war is so fluid, and all-emcompassing, they will respond with a more emotive, and atavistic response that has nothing to do with the actual original definitions.

Let me put it like this, how can the United States be losing in Iraq, if there is no objective? Did not Cenk discuss the Petraeus Paradox?

As long as Democrats are foolish enough to blindly accept the GOP narrative they will consistently lose. You said this:

"Yes. They "created" it, planned it ,executed it and ultimately blew it. I can't think of a better way to refute Republican use of the national security card than through there own incompetence and , incidentally,use their own spin to do it."

Firstly, if this is true why is McCain still even competitive? Secondly, the national security card is not objective, it is monopolized by the GOP bc they created the whole discourse and the Democrats play into it by using the GOP talking points.

Thus, what I am saying is...what is your point? Your argument is Republican light.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 04/20/2008 03:05:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whatever (none / 0)

Fair enough,you do it your way, I'll do it mine.

Let me know how that's working for you 

by MRFred on 04/20/2008 04:03:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Come on....lets be more gracious (none / 0)

My way won't "work" as long as people like you accept the lies and double-standards as truisms. This is not an insult, its a indictment.

My goal is not to change the reality, only to force people to question what they think is natural. So go and try to defeat the Republican's with their own game and "Let me know how that's working for you"  ;)

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 04/20/2008 05:09:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fred versus Nick (none / 0)
This thread makes me laugh, and laughing is a good thing.

Nick thinks that political battles can be won with articulation of intellectually parsed nuance. (Spoken in my my best Thurston Howell III accent.) He comes from the John Kerry, Adlai Stevenson, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern School of Politics.

Fred knows the politics is a knife fight in a phone booth. The only modern equivalent that comes to mind is James Carville.

I'm glad there are many more Nicks than Freds in the Democrat Party.  

by KenTX on 04/20/2008 06:05:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0)
It may be funny to the uneducated in history. To those who have some remedial understanding of history know what they are seeing in the United States is a serious decline economically, intellectually, and morally. The partisanship has gotten so out of hand that you cannot see the forest through the tree's and the real loser is the American people. Thankfully, I am not an American.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 04/20/2008 06:54:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh... (none / 0)

Thank you for the compliment, I'd rather be those electoral losers than the electoral winners who are simply put criminals in the Annals of American history:

Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush...if you are proud of those two...I'd rather never in such a country!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 04/20/2008 06:56:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you work so hard on these posts (none / 0)
Its a shame nobody but mrfred reads'm. Cute pics of the camels.

by hazmat on 04/19/2008 06:43:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 0)
I like the camels.  I like penguins too.  Got any pics of penguins?  How about camels and penguins together?  That would be crazy.

by ProfRich on 04/19/2008 11:36:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rich how did you come up with that? (none / 0)

I'd love to give you credit, but I found the image with google. take that and shove it where the sun don't shine you troll ;)

 

wow! I can use the internets! I wasted your time!! Hahahaha

I kicked your ass from one end of this forum to the other haha!!!!

Don't use that ad hominem. I cant V!@GrA big deal now just folllw ths lnk.

by hazmat on 04/20/2008 02:34:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What Obama understands is this (none / 0)
"The fundamental problem we face in Iraq is that there is not a single center of gravity, as in the cold war, but a whole constellation of contending forces," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism and counterinsurgency expert at Georgetown University. "This is much more fractionated than most people could imagine, with multiple, independent moving parts, and when you have that universe of networks, you can't have a one-size-fits-all approach."

"The entity Mr. McCain was referring to -- Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, also known as Al Qaeda in Iraq -- did not exist until after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.It is a largely homegrown and loosely organized group of Sunni Arabs "

Bush is in so deep not even raising the terror threat is going to help him.

by Chinese Democracy on 04/20/2008 10:30:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh (none / 0)
the trolls know who the enemy is. The head troll John McCain is calling all combatants in Iraq and anyone that remotely disagrees with him Al-Qaeda.  

by Chinese Democracy on 04/19/2008 03:39:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Holy Shit!!! (none / 0)
I'm Al-Qaeda now???

by ProfRich on 04/19/2008 11:28:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Right On Kid!!!! (none / 0)
I am glad somebody has exposed al qaeda for the Boogeyman that it is...

A lot of Americans have this misconception that Al Qaeda guys go to conventions and are like some "Cobra" type organization from the "GI Joe" cartoons... They're not, its a myth, a hoax and boogeyman...

Are there people who hate us? Sure, but its not some centralized organization with name badges and ID numbers... Its something that has been constructed by Bush and Cheney to make people afraid...

When the news says that they killed "al qaeda in Iraq" its a bunch of shit - they killed Arabs who shot at them - does that make them part of the super secret organization? No, it makes them stupid Arabs with AK 47s and bullets...

Thank you Nick... I hope the people are listening to you....

:)

by bobo1 on 04/20/2008 03:54:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK bobo, (none / 0)
since you're my friend, I am open to your point of view on the subject. Let's agree that they're not al Qaeda, they're simply "Stupid Arabs" with AK-47s.

These "Stupid Arabs" have been terrorizing our allies by:
Inviting Iraqi Sunni villagers to lunch, and then serving their ten year old sons, baked with honey glazing and apples in their mouths; Decapitating children in front of their parents; Using mentally retarded people as human bombs.

American forces have been killing or capturing an average of 1500 of these "Stupid Arabs" every month.

Interesting that current intelligence assessments indicate that 90% of these "Stupid Arabs" are coming from outside of Iraq.

Our Iraqi allies are coming to the conclusion that "There is no God but Allah and "Stupid Arabs" are the enemy of Allah”

Iraqis understand that Stupid Arabs are the problem, and they send this message back to America. "Please, tell the Democrats to stop pressuring Bush."

by KenTX on 04/20/2008 04:25:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I didnt say... (none / 0)
We shouldnt still kill them all...

Im saying that Bush and Company use the specter or apparition (boogeyman) of "Al Qaeda" to serve their intentions and purpose throughout the world as an excuse...

If we are gonna be over there, Ken, fine, fucking kill em all - thats what the Army is for - but dont blow smoke up my ass and tell me theres a fire somewhere when we damn well know its just an excuse for Us to go in and take resources and eliminate unfriendly governments... Its a game as old as empire...


Lets just call a spade a spade here, Ken - and please stop yammering about oh they're "killing children and using retards as bombs" - its shameful and awful that children in this country go hungry and sleep in cardboard boxes because we feel the need to feed and support these "Stupid Arabs". Its a sin to let our people go without proper medical care and a higher education because our politicians believe that its more important for people who are 700 years behind us in history to have free medical and more importantly to protect their precious oil... Do you realize what that much money pumped into our economy monthly could do?

Honestly Ken, nobody gives a shit about our children and retards, so why the fuck should I care about ones over there? Dont give me that faux Liberal compassion, because I aint buyin it today...

They will always hate us Ken... Some of them will always try to kill us - fine. But if we are going to be over there, then lets finish the job - but you know thats not gonna happen, so why the fuck are we still there, Ken? You and I both know the answer to that, so dont give me this compassion for others bullshit...

We aren't willing or ready to bite it on Israel (90% of the reason they hat us in the first place) so we can just sit and shit where we are, and I dont blame the Stupid Arabs One Bit for how they feel about us - I would hate us too if I were them...

Thanks...

:)
 

by bobo1 on 04/20/2008 08:33:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's what hypocrisy looks like. (none / 0)
In this clip, Barack Obama expresses outrage at the murder of innocent people in Darfur, Rwanda, and Bosnia. He promises to use American troops around the world as “peacekeepers to stop the violence”.

Meanwhile, there’s plenty of violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Barack Obama guarantees he’ll get America out of the Middle East as soon as possible.

Personally, I don’t give a fuck about Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia, Tibet or any of these other bullshit countries, because they ain’t got any dinosaur juice! Petroleum is the important strategic component in the global economy, and the countries that can get it will rule the world. You better believe that China has figured this out, and they’re already elbowing under the backboard.

I don’t care if a bunch of simple-minded liberals can’t grasp the basic concepts of thermodynamics that make oil essential. I do care about our loving allies in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, because I’m a compassionate conservative.

by KenTX on 04/20/2008 09:31:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
fallacy (none / 0)
This argument only makes sense if you accept the premise that Obama believes our continuing our violent occupation of Iraq is saving Iraqis.  Since Obama does not accept this premise (quite the contrary) there is no hypocrisy.

by ProfRich on 04/20/2008 10:20:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I am always amused (none / 0)

when the conservatives roll out the parade of horribles as a justification to continue draining the US treasury to defend New Iran. Osama bin Ladens number one objective was to destabilize or destroy the American economy. Congratulations Republicans! Mission accomplished!

Bush is too stupid to grasp the reality of what he created so ,he thinks we are as stupid as he is: 

 “The president wants to play on Al Qaeda because he thinks Americans understand the threat Al Qaeda poses. But I don’t think he demonstrates that fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq precludes Al Qaeda from attacking America here tomorrow. Al Qaeda, both in Iraq and globally, thrives on the American occupation.”

  Bruce Riedel, an expert at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and a former C.I.A. official.

As horrible as the little snippets of terror Ken reposts over and over are , somehow when a US munition takes out 30 or 40 civilians...including children, the terror in that act and its impact on the people we are trying to influence, is lost the pro-Iraq war crowd. Oh well,they say, unfortunate, but the cost of "freedom."  Bush and his supporters are fear mongering pure and simple.

LIE:American forces have been killing or capturing an average of 1500 of these "Stupid Arabs" every month. 

Fact  (1)  The precise size of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is not known. Estimates are that it may have from a few thousand to 5,000 fighters and perhaps twice as many supporters. ( At 1500 month ...we have already won! Did someone save the "Misson Accomplished banner?)

 

LIE Interesting that current intelligence assessments indicate that 90% of these "Stupid Arabs" are coming from outside of Iraq.

Fact (2) US Intelligence believes the membership of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is overwhelmingly Iraqi. Its financing is derived largely indigenously from kidnappings and other criminal activities.

 

 Spin These "Stupid Arabs" have been terrorizing our allies. AND  Our Iraqi allies are coming to the conclusion that "There is no God but Allah and "Stupid Arabs" are the enemy of Allah”

Fact (3)Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia most ardent foe are the Shiite militias and the Iranians who are deemed to support them. They must be the "allies" Ken is referring to.

 

Bush claims that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001 and has grossly distorted the nature of the  insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership in general(4).

No matter, " if American forces were to withdraw from Iraq, the vast majority of the group’s members would likely be more focused on battling Shiite militias in the struggle for dominance in Iraq than on trying to follow the Americans home.(5) "

Finally, in Kens case..if withdrawing from Iraq produced a new tax cut, in his view, the troops should be home tomorrow. Supporting Iraq is all politics for most Republicans...namely preserving the status quo and fattening their wallets. The freedom of our "brave Iraqi allies" is not a consideration.

by MRFred on 04/20/2008 09:40:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Facts are stubborn things. (none / 0)
That's why I recycle the same information. I enjoy watching liberals struggle as they attempt to refute the facts.

The link I offered presents recent U.S. intelligence data describing the origin of al Qaeda fighters operating within Iraq. Perhaps you don’t like the article and what it means about the enemy we’re fighting in Iraq.

If Iraq has become a giant roach motel for Islamic Jihadists throughout the Middle East, and Iraqis are doing the rat killing, then they deserve our continued support.

We already know what the Bush Administration is willing to do to fight al Qaeda. Look at what happened in the Middle East after we knocked over the outlaw regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lebanon is now battling al Qaeda.

Afghanistan is now battling al Qaeda.

Sunni Iraqis are now battling al Qaeda.

The Iraqi Army is now battling al Qaeda.

Pakistan is now battling al Qaeda.

Saudi Arabia is now battling al Qaeda.

Libya is now battling al Qaeda.

UAE is now battling al Qaeda.

Yemen is now battling al Qaeda.

Sudan is now battling al Qaeda.
Can anyone tell me what the Obama Administration would do to fight al Qaeda?

by KenTX on 04/20/2008 05:36:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah they are...you should use some...and (none / 0)

actually read your links.

SPIN: American forces have been killing or capturing an average of 1500 of these "Stupid Arabs" every month.

FACT  (1)  The precise size of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is not known. Estimates are that it may have from a few thousand to 5,000 fighters and perhaps twice as many supporters. ( NOTE At 1500 month ...we have already won! Did someone save the "Misson Accomplished banner?)

SPIN Again The link I offered presents recent U.S. intelligence data describing the origin of al Qaeda fighters operating within Iraq.

FACT: the article publised in 2007 presents recent U.S. intelligence data that describes the individual records of 606 foreign fighters who entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007

 

Math :killing or capturing an average of 1500 of these "Stupid Arabs" every month for the same period  = 18,000

Foreign Fighters recorded by recent U.S. intelligence data for the same period = 606 

 Terrorist Deficit = -17349

 You guys love deficits don't you.

Anyway, to recycle , this is the last time I crushed that thread.

It was funny the first thie you posted it..last year

I cant type.... I 'm laughing so hard....

Will the spin ever end?  Battling?   I wasn't aware that a little cooperation was " battling" When will the Sudanese Libyian  Saudi Lebanese and UAE army units arrive in Iraq?

SPIN: We already know what the Bush Administration is willing to do to fight al Qaeda. Look at what happened in the Middle East after we knocked over the outlaw regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Facts: 

Sudan?""These are not all nice guys, but they have gone way past a passing grade on counter-terrorism cooperation and don't technically belong on the list," he said. "The reason they are still there is Darfur, which is not related to state-sponsored terrorism but makes lifting sanctions now politically impossible."

Libya? fighting terrorism..."The official said British business would gain from closer ties with oil-rich Libya, until recently seen by the West as a pariah state and sponsor of terrorism."

Pakistan "questions about Pakistan's commitment persist" even after ALQ keeps trying to knock off  Mussharif. Making peace deals with the Taliban is not what I call Battling terrorism" [UPDATE] Mussharif recently said that ALQ "is not their main priorty."[UPDATE] see GAO report about safe ALQ SAFE HAVENs in Pakistan.

UAE..now thats funny...the Dubai Ports World deal is the basis for fighting ALQ. What a hoot. UAE could buy Bin Laden his own caliphate and end the whole thing.

The Iraqi Army when the ethically organized units  aren't knocking off the opposition or abandoning  their post...they may be fighting ALQ. al Sadr

 The Suni ( Shieks) seem to have some effect in Anbar...to bad the Sunis arent fighting the miniscule amounts of ALQ in the other 85% of the country.

The Lebenese. I'm sure that ALQ is shaking in thier boots. Why is the goverment "battling" ALQ? The Government says Fatah al-Islam is backed by Syria. These guys would have been ignored if they did not try to rob a bank and hide in a refugee camp.

 

Now as far as the Bush Legacy goes...lets recycle some more!


  • Invade the wrong country,
  • Lose 30 billion in oil revenue
  • Lose several billion in reconstruction funds.
  • Open the Iraqi borders an allow the country to be infiltrated by ALQ ( must have been a test of the guest worker program)
  • shame our nation with Abu Ghraib
  • Ignore the generals.
  • Exaggerate intelligence
  • Enrich Halliburton.
  • Let Bin Laden get away.
  • Politicize the GWOT
  • wreak the economy
  • spend 1 Trillion dollars in Iraq and to top it all off the stupid ass didnt even get a 0% financing deal!
  • create the largest defict ever...
  • piss away 8 years ignoring global warming
  • piss away eight years with no energy policy
  • piss on 90% of the American public..give tax cuts to the top 10%

by MRFred on 04/20/2008 07:13:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow... (none / 0)

Using that logic why isn't the US in Congo where 5 million people have died in similar barbaric circumstances? The reason is simple, all those things you mentioned are a DIRECT result of the US invasion. None of that would have happened if the US did not go into Iraq. So really, the US is using its own failures in security, which I think the US sows the seeds of instability in Iraq for its own interests, to stay in Iraq.

Ergo, Republican argument:

Iraq is a horrible place, where mini-genocide is taking place --> This takes places because of the American invasion and occupation 

Ergo, Republican argument:

The United States defends the rights and lives of the Iraqi people in the face of "Al Qaeda" --> Abu Gharib, Fallujah, Blackwater, and other barbarities committed by the United States.

Peace will NOT happen in Iraq, if it did the US would have to leave. If the US left, then it would lose its permament bases, oil concessions, and Republians would lose elections. How gullible are some people?

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 04/20/2008 11:51:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
This is not news really (none / 0)
Capturing and killing Bin Laden has been a secondary consideration since the day he escaped Tora Bora.  When Bush said "I'm not that concerned about him" he wasn't kidding, that was as honest a statement as you'll ever get out of him. 

by bfaul on 04/19/2008 06:00:25 PM EST

For me (none / 0)
What gets me about the "I don't care about Bin Laden" quote is that the squirelly little fucker is laughing while he says it.

by ProfRich on 04/19/2008 11:34:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
they probably have him (none / 0)
McCain and Bush will *capture* bin Laden around September, right?  An ugly nightmare.

by desertpear on 04/20/2008 02:16:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure we do! (none / 0)

bastard

Get the --- damn BASTARD out of office that put us there in the first place, that let the Bin Laden's fly out after 9/11, who rubber stamped torture and has passed the buck or scape goated more peeps than a naughty boy with his hand caught in the cookie jar, and continues to bilk the American people for the blank check Congress gave him in 2002. When he could have been working on that comprehensive plan. BUT nooooo... he had to go get us involved in three more wars on four fronts and recruit far more terrorists to their cause than ever could have happened had we simply done nothing. 

by tiggerporn on 04/20/2008 01:33:54 PM EST

Bump Bump Bump (none / 0)

by MRFred on 07/30/2008 06:09:48 PM EST

The United States Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat | 37 comments (37 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: