Bush's Incompetence Gives al-Qaida New Life

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Pretty alarming to learn that they are just as powerful as they were pre 9/11 confirming we haven't accomplished anything in Bush's war on terror except for probably emboldening them.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Bush's incompetence gives al-Qaida new life
The White House hints at military action as the terror organization regroups in northern Pakistan and the Musharraf government begins to wobble.

By Juan Cole
Pages 1 2

July 24, 2007 | In the past week, worrying signs of a resurgence of al-Qaida surfaced in cyberspace, in Pakistan and in Washington, D.C. The Pakistani military's invasion of a major mosque and seminary complex in the country's capital set off an unprecedented, violent wave of protests and car bombings in the north of the country. A new National Intelligence Estimate warned that al-Qaida was reconstituting itself in those very areas of northern Pakistan. A U.S. threat to send Special Forces into Pakistan in search of al-Qaida roiled relations with the weakened Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. And a new videotape of Osama bin Laden surfaced.




Photo: Reuters TV
Undated footage of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden from a video that CNN said on July 14, 2007, was intercepted before it appeared on radical Islamist Web sites.


In a videotape that CNN characterized as having been "intercepted," excerpts of which appeared on an anti-terrorist Web site last week, a grayer bin Laden appears in fatigues against a mountainous backdrop, arguing that the Prophet Mohammed himself wished for martyrdom. In reality, though the Prophet had been prepared to sacrifice his life to defend the early Muslim community, he forbade suicide. Before the 1980s, there had never been a suicide bombing in the Muslim world; the technique was pioneered by the Marxist (and largely Hindu) Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Bin Laden's little sermon was intended to hijack the Prophet and Islam for the purposes of al-Qaida.

But the very fact that bin Laden could still deliver his poisonous message to the Muslim world six years after his attack on New York and Washington killed some 3,000 people is first and foremost a remarkable testament to the incompetence and fecklessness of the Bush administration. The tape, the new NIE and events in Pakistan and Afghanistan all suggest that, shockingly, al-Qaida is more deadly now than at any time during the past half-decade.

The new National Intelligence Estimate, released early last week, said that al-Qaida "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" inasmuch as it had once again set up a safe haven in northern Pakistan and was reassembling its top leadership. The Iraq war and the success of Salafi jihadis in fighting the U.S. there have, moreover, allowed bin Laden's organization "to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks."

Meanwhile, events in Pakistan show a pro-American dictatorship shaken by demonstrations of fundamentalist Islamic power. President Musharraf has long been a linchpin of the Bush administration's "war on terror."
Musharraf had made a truce with the tribes of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan's northwestern region, where al-Qaida remnants are thought to be hiding out. These vast, rugged regions along the Afghan border have defied central government control throughout history. Even the British Empire at its height never subdued them.

The truce came after the Pakistani military had suffered significant casualties in fighting in the region. Emboldened by Musharraf's seeming retreat, militants of the neo-Deobandi school of radical theology came from the north and established themselves in the Red Mosque and seminary of the capital, Islamabad, seeking to impose themselves as a sort of local Taliban-style morals police. They eventually turned violent, capturing police on May 19, and then taking Chinese acupuncture workers captive on June 23, forcing Musharraf's hand. The subsequent invasion of the mosque and seminary on July 10, which left over 100 dead, outraged other Deobandis in the Pashtun areas of the north, provoking thousands to demonstrate in the North-West Frontier province.

Since the government's seizure of the mosque, dozens of people in the north have been killed by suicide bombers targeting Pakistani security forces. Angered by the government invasion of the mosque and military crackdown in the north, Waziristan tribal leaders canceled their truce with Islamabad on July 15. On Monday, the Pakistani military said it had killed 35 militants near the Afghanistan border in renewed clashes that also left two Pakistani soldiers dead.

And now the U.S. seems to be thinking about operating in the same area. Mike McConnell, U.S. director of national intelligence, said Sunday on NBC television of bin Laden, "My personal view is that he's alive, but we don't know because we can't confirm it for over a year ... I believe he is in the tribal region of Pakistan." Pakistani authorities angrily denied the assertion.

McConnell's comments came in the wake of earlier remarks by Frances Townsend, Bush's homeland security advisor, who, when asked if U.S. Special Forces might go into Waziristan in search of Bin Laden, replied, "There are no tools off the table, and we use all our instruments of national power to be effective."


Next page: The de facto American threat to invade Pakistan also brought an alarmed reaction from the Musharraf regime

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Operation Iraq betrayal

In the absence of anything remotely resembling victory in Iraq, Bush and Cheney play the blame game -- including in a new, authorized biography of the vice president.
By Sidney Blumenthal

Pages 1 2

July 26, 2007 | President Bush's political strategy at home is an implicit if unintended admission of the failure of his military strategy in Iraq and toward terrorism generally. Betrayal is his theme, delivered in his speeches, embroidered by his officials and trumpeted by the brass band of neoconservative publicists. The foundation for his stab-in-the-back theory was laid in the beginning.

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists," Bush said in his joint address to Congress nine days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. And in the weeks that followed he repeated variations of his formula, reducing it to "for or against us in the war on terrorism." At the Charleston, S.C., Air Force Base on Tuesday, Bush resumed his repudiated habit of conflating threats, suggesting a connection between 9/11 and the Iraq war, and intensified his blaming of domestic critics for the shortcomings of his policy. His story line depends upon omitting his own part in the calamity. "The facts are," insisted Bush to his captive audience, "that al-Qaida terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again."


AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari
Vice President Dick Cheney, left, listens, as President Bush meets with members of Congress, Wednesday, June 20, 2007, in the Oval Office at the White House.

But how did it happen that al-Qaida in Iraq, sworn enemy of Saddam Hussein and his secularism, operating in isolation prior to 9/11, though almost certainly with the connivance and protection of Kurdish leader and current Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, has come to thrive under the U.S. occupation? And since AQI represents perhaps 1 percent or less of the insurgent strength, how can it be depicted as the main foe, capable of seizing state power? The other Sunni insurgent groups increasingly view it as an impediment to their own ambitions and have marked it for elimination. Rather than address these problematic complexities, Bush points the finger of blame at U.S. senators who dare to question his policy. "Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of al-Qaida in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat."

Bush's accusation of betrayal anticipates the September report of Gen. David Petraeus on the progress of the "surge" in Iraq. The absence of victory inspires a search for an enemy within. Bush's stab-in-the-back theory is the latest corollary to the old policy that military force will create political success. Bush is a vulgar Maoist: "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun," said Chairman Mao. But the surge is simply an endlessly repetitive reaction to the failure of the purely military. Somehow, in the political vacuum, additional U.S. troops are supposed to quell the civil war, compel the sects and factions to lie down like lambs, and destroy AQI. U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker last week begged that the Iraqi government not be held accountable for meeting political benchmarks, none of which have been realized; and at the same time he requested exit visas for his Iraqi staff, who obviously have no confidence in the Bush policy and do not wish to leave via the embassy roof. Crocker's actions speak louder than his words -- and louder than Bush's.

Bush, however, clings to the rhetoric of conventional warfare, of "victory" and "retreat." The collapsed Iraqi state, proliferation of sectarian warfare and murderous strife even among Shiite militias bewilder him; clear-cut dichotomies are more comforting, producing deeper confusion. The friend of his enemy is his friend; the enemy of his enemy is not his friend. Meanwhile, Bush seeks to displace responsibility for the potentially dire consequences of his policy on others.

Neoconservative publicists spread the calumnies that critics of Bush's policy are against the troops and that these critics will be responsible for genocide if they and not Bush are followed. William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard -- whose July 15 article in the Washington Post, "Why Bush Will Be a Winner," Bush has recommended to his White House staff -- has published a new piece in the latest issue of his magazine, "They Don't Really Support the Troops." "Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support," he writes. His combination of nuance and crudity is ideologically deft. By pointing out that "some of them supported" the war at the start, his intention is not to draw distinctions but to lump all critics together as now undifferentiated and discreditable -- "the left." Then he ascribed a common motive: fear that Bush will succeed and a hatred of the soldiers. "They sense that history is progressing away from them -- that these soldiers, fighting courageously in a just cause, could still win the war, that they are proud of their service, and that they will be future leaders of this country." But this is not enough for Kristol. "The left slanders them. We support them. More than that, we admire them." Slander?

Jonah Goldberg, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, writes in an article Tuesday that "liberals" are the ones responsible for a coming "genocide" in Iraq. "But if genocide unfolds in Iraq after American troops depart, it would be hard to argue that we weren't at least partly to blame. Yes, the mass murder would have more immediate authors than the United States of America, but we would undeniably be responsible, at least in part, for giving a green light to genocide." Having initially adopted a vague "we," he quickly dispenses with this rhetorical strategy, blaming "liberals" and one person in particular for "mass murder." Barack Obama "offers precisely that green light," he writes.

On July 16, the Associated Press reported on a letter from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman to Sen. Hillary Clinton, condemning her for deigning to request in her capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee information on Pentagon contingency plans for withdrawal. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman replied. Even asking about such plans aids and abets the enemy, tantamount to treason. Edelman added the suggestion of a massacre if we "abandon" the "allies," and said its responsibility would fall on those who raised questions.

In response to a letter from Sen. Clinton, asking if Edelman's statement "accurately characterizes your views as Secretary of Defense," Robert Gates in effect repudiated it. "I have long been a staunch advocate of congressional oversight, first at the CIA and now at the Defense Department," he wrote on July 20. "I have said on several occasions in recent months that I believe that congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive and appropriate. I had not seen Senator Clinton's reply to Ambassador Edelman's letter until today."

Gates' note is extraordinary not only for its open acknowledgment of a breach with his undersecretary but also for its revelation that he was unaware of Edelman's vitriolic letter. Edelman is a longtime neoconservative with deep ties to Dick Cheney. Like John Bolton, who served as a counterintelligence agent for Cheney when he was undersecretary of state under Colin Powell, Edelman does not truly serve his immediate superior in the chain of command. His ultimate allegiance is pledged to an ideological network. Given the incendiary nature of his letter to a Democratic presidential candidate, which could only be conceived and interpreted as supremely political, it's hard to imagine that as seasoned an operator as Edelman would act entirely on his own. But if he did not brief and receive approval from Gates -- and Gates has gone out of his way to distance himself from any involvement -- then whom did Edelman discuss his letter with before he sent it?

Edelman is a rare Foreign Service officer long aligned with neoconservatives. As he explained in his letter of April 21 to Judge Reggie Walton requesting clemency in sentencing for I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, he has known Libby, "a deeply dedicated public servant," for 26 years. Edelman first served with Libby, he wrote, during the Reagan administration, followed by service as Libby's deputy in the Defense Department during the elder Bush's administration, under Secretary of Defense Cheney, and most recently as Libby's deputy on Cheney's staff.

Edelman, in fact, was the first person on Cheney's staff to sound the alarm against former ambassador Joseph Wilson after reading the May 6, 2003, column by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times that described Wilson but did not name him. Edelman urged Libby to leak information to rebut Wilson's disclosure that it was a request from the vice president's office that initiated his mission to Niger in search of the phantom yellowcake uranium Bush claimed Saddam was purchasing -- a major rationale for the Iraq war.


Next page: The Defense Department's inspector general issued a report calling Feith's operation "inappropriate"

.

[BroncoBuff]

Such a scandal.

So foolish, it almost treasonous. A 12-year old would know better - you go after the one that attacked you until you get him. THEN maybe think about another thing.


Worst.Administration.Ever.

[BroncoBuff]

It's no fun being an American anymore. The pride is gone these last four years.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Such a scandal.

So foolish, it almost treasonous. A 12-year old would know better - you go after the one that attacked you until you get him. THEN maybe think about another thing.


Worst.Administration.Ever.

If they were operating a private business, they would be bankrupt and in jail!

[baja]

That's just it they are operating a private business.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by baja fan

That's just it they are operating a private business.

Well then we (the stockholder) should recall (impeach) the CEO, the asst to the CEO and the CFO and it would hurt to find a new corporate lawyer!

[baja]

I am going to be interested to see if popular opinion of the American people will side with this "Loose lips sink ships". scam bushco in currently running.

[Chupacabra]

Not a new OBL tape.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

Not a new OBL tape.

Is this a comment or a question or **** just dribbling out

[Chupacabra]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Is this a comment or a question or **** just dribbling out

We covered this, a-hole. The supposed "new" OBL tape was filmed in 2002.

It is interesting how you people are so critical of any positive information from Iraq or the Bush administration... yet anything of the contrary is immediately accepted.

[Chupacabra]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...7&postcount=18

Of course, you can choose to deny common sense. I would expect nothing else.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

We covered this, a-hole. The supposed "new" OBL tape was filmed in 2002.

It is interesting how you people are so critical of any positive information from Iraq or the Bush administration... yet anything of the contrary is immediately accepted.

Who covered it, did you ever find a link from any intelligent sources confirming this?

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

We covered this, a-hole. The supposed "new" OBL tape was filmed in 2002.

It is interesting how you people are so critical of any positive information from Iraq or the Bush administration... yet anything of the contrary is immediately accepted.

Read your post, *&^%head. It doesn't make sense to the average english speaking person. but then.......

[Chupacabra]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Read your post, *&^%head. It doesn't make sense to the average english speaking person. but then.......

Wtf are you talking about?

[Chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Who covered it, did you ever find a link from any intelligent sources confirming this?

It is clearly the same video. Hence, major news outlets (liberal media) aren't showing the video claiming its new OBL propaganda. No coverage on this new al Queda propaganda has claimed the OBL to be recently filmed. They have all said its undated/unknown. So, use your eyes and look at the two videos. Same clothes. Same upward left sloping mountain in the background. Same hut on the right. Same leaves dangling overhead. SAME SHOT.

Now, I could reference one of my conservative blogs as a source...but that would be stooping to the level of others that reference liberal blogs as sources.

[Chupacabra]

Look, I'm not saying OBL is dead. (Even tho I personally think he is)
I'm not saying the NIE is incorrect.
All I'm saying, is the new OBL video is not new at all. Why would they only put 50 seconds into the al Queda video? Why not more? Why would he not cite recent events?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

It is clearly the same video. Hence, major news outlets (liberal media) aren't showing the video claiming its new OBL propaganda.

The "liberal" news media have all linked to it on the internet.

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

No coverage on this new al Queda propaganda has claimed the OBL to be recently filmed. They have all said its undated/unknown.

Which is it, either the "liberal" media isn't showing it, claiming it's new or they all are claiming it's undated/unknown?

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

So, use your eyes and look at the two videos. Same clothes. Same upward left sloping mountain in the background. Same hut on the right. Same leaves dangling overhead. SAME SHOT.
Now, I could reference one of my conservative blogs as a source...but that would be stooping to the level of others that reference liberal blogs as sources.

You think any of our intelligence gathering agencies (or any others around the world) my figure this out if it is the same video.

[baja]

I too think osama is dead, I also fine it very interesting that the Bush administration never speculates on this or points out what Chupa is pointing out. All the Ben Ladin tapes are old there is nothing recent. Why doesn't bushco at least try to discredit these tapes, I'll tell you why because they need their 'poster boy' of the boogie man to keep that "Fear Card" potent and ready to play when needed.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

We covered this, a-hole. The supposed "new" OBL tape was filmed in 2002.

It is interesting how you people are so critical of any positive information from Iraq or the Bush administration... yet anything of the contrary is immediately accepted.

Is that one of those oxymorons?

[Chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Is that one of those oxymorons?

I've posted several positive news bits from Iraq that were immediately dismissed as false by you and your like.

I've seen other posting about positives from the Bush admin. that you ppl ignore and deflect.

[Chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

The "liberal" news media have all linked to it on the internet.
Which is it, either the "liberal" media isn't showing it, claiming it's new or they all are claiming it's undated/unknown?

You think any of our intelligence gathering agencies (or any others around the world) my figure this out if it is the same video.

It barely made it on the front page of various liberal news websites. They have not claimed it to be new, because it is not new.

As far as our intelligence gathering agencies....... Where have they said that it was a video that was filmed recently? Wouldn't THAT make front headlines on every major news publication? If it was filmed recently, there would be voluminous information about it...instead there are few stories about the propaganda video that say the video is undated/unknown, BECAUSE IT IS NOT NEW.

Look for yourself.....do some investigative research on your own instead of relying on others.....watch the two videos....if you really can't determine that it is in fact THE EXACT SAME SHOT, then you should have your eyes/brain checked out.

I'm glad the intelligence community isn't wasting their time to disprove liberals, conspiracy theorists, and bush bashers, only to further circulate this al Queda propaganda.

[Chupacabra]

Originally Posted by baja fan

I too think osama is dead, I also fine it very interesting that the Bush administration never speculates on this or points out what Chupa is pointing out. All the Ben Ladin tapes are old there is nothing recent. Why doesn't bushco at least try to discredit these tapes, I'll tell you why because they need their 'poster boy' of the boogie man to keep that "Fear Card" potent and ready to play when needed.

Maybe because the risk of being wrong? (not that they haven't been scared to take that risk before tho)

I agree, it is because they need to keep the fear card.

[Chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

do some investigative research on your own

Maybe I'm asking too much.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

It barely made it on the front page of various liberal news websites. They have not claimed it to be new, because it is not new.

As far as our intelligence gathering agencies....... Where have they said that it was a video that was filmed recently? Wouldn't THAT make front headlines on every major news publication? If it was filmed recently, there would be voluminous information about it...instead there are few stories about the propaganda video that say the video is undated/unknown, BECAUSE IT IS NOT NEW.

Look for yourself.....do some investigative research on your own instead of relying on others.....watch the two videos....if you really can't determine that it is in fact THE EXACT SAME SHOT, then you should have your eyes/brain checked out.

I'm glad the intelligence community isn't wasting their time to disprove liberals, conspiracy theorists, and bush bashers, only to further circulate this al Queda propaganda.

Where have they said it wasn't and is a 5 year old video that you are claiming?