Right Wing Lunatic

Let me put it to you this way:  If ANY American leader (Congress, President, etc) tries to negotiate with Al-Qaeda in a serious way (instead of just luring them into a trap), I want that person charged with treason and executed.

But proponents say al Qaeda has established itself as a de facto power, whether the West likes it or not, and history shows militant movements are best neutralized by negotiation, not war.

Well, we're America.  We've done things that no one else has done in history, both good and bad.

Al-Qaeda lost all negotiating abilities when they started attacking and killing Americans.  Khobar Towers, Embassy Bombings, USS Cole, 9/11, etc.  You simply don't get to kill your way into power.  Hamas is only lucky to be in power because the Palestinians actively support terrorist groups by voting for them.  You see what happens when that happens.  Massive sanctions, refusal to listen to them, complete shut down of public services, etc.

I cannot stress this enough.  If any leader of our nation tries to negotiate with Al-Qaeda, you are treading on some very dangerous territory.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-qaeda

Well if the video's been tampered with many times that begs a LOT of very important questions:

Is Bin Laden still alive?

When was this tape really made?

Was it made years ago and just his voice dubbed in to help throw off people as to what he currently looks like?

The September 7 video shows bin Laden dressed in a white hat, white shirt and yellow sweater. Krawetz notes "this is the same clothing he wore in the 2004-10-29 video. In 2004 he had it unzipped, but in 2007 he zipped up the bottom half. Besides the clothing, it appears to be the same background, same lighting, and same desk. Even the camera angle is almost identical." Krawetz also notes that "if you overlay the 2007 video with the 2004 video, his face has not changed in three years--only his beard is darker and the contrast on the picture has been adjusted."

So was this video really made in 2004 instead of 2007?  It certainly is a distinct possibility.

More important though are the edits. At roughly a minute and a half into the video there is a splice; bin Laden shifts from looking at the camera to looking down in less than 1/25th of a second. At 13:13 there is a second, less obvious splice. In all, Krawetz says there are at least six splices in the video. Of these, there are only two live bin Laden segments, the rest of the video composed of still images. The first live section opens the video and ends at 1:56. The second section begins at 12:29 and continues until 14:01. The two live sections appear to be from different recordings "because the desk is closer to the camera in the second section."

Sounds to me like perhaps the video is older, but the audio is newer.  It certainly would explain a lot.  It would be much harder for people to find Bin Laden, especially if he shaves his beard and then regrows it for whenever he needs to make an appearance.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-qaeda, Osama Bin Laden

Osama Bin Laden has a 46% approval rating and Musharraf has a 38% approval
rating inside of Pakistan.

Seventy-four percent said they oppose U.S. military action against al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan.

Asked their opinion on the real purpose of the U.S.-led war on terror, 66 percent of poll respondents said they believe the United States is acting against Islam or has anti-Muslim motivation. Others refused to answer the question or said they did not know.

 

There were a few bright spots in the poll results, however. Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto -- a relatively moderate and progressive figure, as well as a woman -- had a 63 percent approval rating.

Seventy-five percent of poll respondents said suicide bombings are rarely or never justified.

Ok, so 75% of the people say suicide bombings are rarely or never justified, but they seem to think that the 9/11 attacks were ok?  The nerve of these "people" really chaps my ass.  But wait, it gets better.

And a majority of Pakistanis said their opinion of the United States would improve if, among other things, there were increases in American aid to Pakistan, American business investments and the number of visas issued for Pakistanis to work in the United States.

They must be out of their minds if they think that's ever going to happen.  First off, they seem to have quickly forgotten our help in the 2005 earthquake that they had that killed upwards of 90,000 people.  If they are so quick to forget that unconditional help and their views on us is so poor, why should we even BEGIN to bother to help them out or invest in their country?

It's the same bullshit you hear from Palestinians.  "Death to America!  Death to Israel!.....hey, can you spare a few bucks?"  You wouldn't give money to someone like that who threatened you and talked crap about you all day long, so how is Pakistan any different?

Pakistan should thank it's lucky stars that we're not going in there now.  They like to think America is hated around the world universally, but everyone is still on board to get Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

Labels: al-qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Palestinians, Pervez Musharraf, Report

Today is the 6th anniversary of the attacks in 2001 when 3,000 of your fellow countrymen were murdered by religious nutjobs.  It is important to remember that their only "crime" was going to work or traveling that day.  But it is equally important to remember the Palestinians were celebrating the attacks

 

 

And here:

In my view, people like this are monsters and should NEVER be given it's own state.  They vote in a known terrorist organization as their government, they celebrated during the 9/11 attacks, and they openly attack Israel.

Do you need any other reasons?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: 9-11, al-qaeda, Palestinians

I've railed against Keith Olbermann for quite some time and I thought that he was just another looney tune liberal with a TV show.  Wow, I could not have imagined that he thinks that two groups who've murdered almost 4,000 people are less than a threat then a new station.

Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was.

He's really off the deep end on this one.  Especially to spit it out on September 11th is really offensive.  Because a news organization takes a different stance then him, he can't stand up to the opposing viewpoint, so he simply calls names and makes wild accusations.  That's the first sign of a losing argument.

So, I think I can speak for all of America and say:  Fuck you Keith.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-qaeda, Fox News, idiocy, Keith Olbermann

We've been keeping an eye on the political scene in Pakistan for a while now because if Musharraf falls, a hard line Islamic militant leadership is quite possible to fill the power vacuum.  If that happens, they now have access to nuclear weapons; something the US and anyone else with half a brain can never allow. 

Well Musharraf has now decided to share some power with a political enemy, there by hoping to avoid a conflict that may cost him his leadership post.

It's all something that we should be concerned with, especially considering that Osama Bin Laden is believed to be within some areas of Pakistan.  If true and a militant leadership replaces Musharraf, you can bet your ass we're going into Pakistan.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-qaeda, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Politics

So, last night I heard that my Representative Brian Baird was going to be in Vancouver doing a town hall meeting over his change in his stance in the Iraq war.  He was now supporting it and was facing his critics.  Should be fun and I'll get to see some fireworks, I thought.

Well there was and more.  First off, I arrived at Fort Vancouver High School's auditorium with about 500 other people around 7pm and sat there for a while and listened to what he had to say.

Let me tell you something, he's about the only Democrat in the whole of Congress I have respect for.  He told everyone about his conceptions of what to expect when he went to Iraq twice (at his own personal expense) and that he came back with an overwhelming feeling of things were improving from our soldiers, regional leaders and Iraqi civilians.

He also saw the carnage that can happen in Iraq and came to the same conclusion that I did a while ago:  If we leave these people, they will be slaughtered, a theocracy will be set up, and we will eventually have to go back and destroy the militants all over again.  He said he was 95% certain of that.

But while he's talking, I see a man who's over dressed for the occasion.  He's wearing a suit and tie, hair combed nicely, he just didn't fit in.  I couldn't see his face, but I thought he was with the security detail.  Then he started to talk.  I didn't catch his name at first, but he sounded REALLY familiar.  Then I heard Brian Baird say "I appreciate your opinion Mr. Soltz".

 

 

"MOTHERFUCKER!",  I thought, "it CAN'T be JON SOLTZ" can it?  Sure enough, I caught a glimpse of his face.  Sure enough it was him.  The same Jon Soltz who berated a soldier who was saying that the surge in Iraq was working at Yearly Kos for "talking about politics in my uniform".  I wrote about it earlier.

So, I decided that I'd corner Jon about his little bit of hypocrisy and see what he had to say.  After he was done berating Brian Baird (not rudely mind you), he was shaking hands, and waiting for the press to get ready to interview him.  I was standing behind him when the press were just gathering around him.  About 5 or so reporters were writing things down when I asked him these questions:

"Mr. Soltz, first off, I'd like to thank you for your service to our country".  I shook his hand because I was sincere in that regard.  Anyone who picks up a weapon and defends my country, I have an immediate respect for, regardless of their political viewpoint. 

 

Travis:

"Mr. Soltz, you berated a soldier at Yearly Kos for wearing a uniform while talking about politics"

Jon: 

"I acted like an asshole to that soldier.  I should have handled it better."

Travis:  "But Mr. Soltz, don't you think it's a tad hypocritical that you berated this man who wasn't talking about politics, only about the successes he's seen in Iraq after the surge, when you have a political website and there's a picture of you in uniform?"

Jon: 

Who was taken aback mind you.

"Well......I have the right to use that photo in any way I want..." and he trailed off for a second.

All the while, reporters are writing furiously.  I don't know if they were writing about what we were talking about, but they were writing as fast as they could.

Travis:

"Well Mr. Soltz, if you do have that right, which I'm not contesting, don't you think it makes you look like a hypocritical jerk if you're going to berate someone for something and then turn around and appear to do the exact same thing"?

Jon:

"Thank you for your time, I have to go talk to these people now".

 

I didn't push the issue as there were a lot of people around and I still didn't get to ask my questions to Brian Baird and I didn't want to be asked to leave.  But I think I got my point across.

So I listened to what Rep. Baird had to say.  He gave example after example along with facts to back up his opinion, but most of the crowd wasn't having any of it.

What I really was disgusted with was the manners of everyone in the audience.  Regardless of your stance on issues, people would shout out their opinions without waiting for anyone else to finish what they were saying.

Some people brought up the fact that we don't go into other countries that need our help, so I thought I'd stick up for Mr. Baird and said "We went into Liberia when no one else would.  How many other nations are in Liberia?"

That shut the guy up pretty quickly.  What I also noticed was the complete lack of homework done by the anti-war crowd.  They had no clue about the region, how it works, or even who the major players were. 

Several people asked why surrounding countries like Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia weren't helping, I knew I was in for a treat.  Mr. Baird said point blank: "you don't want the Iranian or Syrian's help"  Jordan and other allies in the region aren't going to help because their view point is "we didn't have these problems before the invasion".

Mr. Baird seemed to have a good grasp on things and really had done his homework on the issue.  I must say I was very impressed by a Democrat, which as you all know, doesn't happen often.

So then one person asked why can't we just leave the mess as is.  The guy who asked it was obviously a college student who had ZERO responsibilities in his life.  Mr. Baird asked him if he broke something would he replace it or fix it?  The guy was speechless.

Then there was the run on guys.  There were dozens of people standing there waiting to ask their questions, and some people would just drone on and on about various things that were "wrong" in their head but they never actually asked a question or made a statement.  It pissed off a lot of people.  There were cat calls of "get to the point"!

Well around 11:00 last night, I finally got to my turn to ask my questions.  However, they were going to call it a night so I only got 1 minute to say my piece. 

I gave Mr. Baird a disclaimer:  "I must warn you, I'm a Republican".  His head bowed a little bit waiting for the next attack to come.  "However, I voted for you twice".  He said "Thank you".  I told him "You're the best man for the job when I voted for you, and you're the best man for the job now".  His ears perked up.

I asked Mr. Baird about the Iranian threat because of the sniper rifle situation where they bought expensive sniper rifles to fight "drug dealers" only to have hundreds of them end up in insurgents hands within 6 weeks of delivery.  I wrote about it here earlier.  As soon as I mentioned the Iranian sniper rifles being delivered to insurgents and that it was confirmed by the weapon's manufacturer, his ears and whole demeanor perked right up.

He pointed at me and agreed whole heartedly.  I got a few people who said I was lying or worse, but Mr. Baird came to my defense: "what he is saying is 100% true, that was a recently declassified document.  I'm glad you did your homework".  I looked around at the people who said I was lying and said: "Apparently you didn't do yours".  I got sneered at.

His answer wasn't as clear as I would have liked. He said that we are isolating and undermining the Iranian government with sanctions and "other methods".  He said that the Iranian threat was real and that to underestimate them or to "go it alone" would be a mistake that we would all pay for. 

But the best part was when a man behind me said "Don't bomb Iran".  So, I had enough at this point and turned to him and said: "Ok genius, if you're so smart, with the Iranians supporting a very large portion of the insurgency in Iraq, how would you combat it".  I made sure to make my comments loud enough for the auditorium to hear.  He didn't have an answer.  I asked him "Well if we're not bombing Iran, what should we do.  Don't chastise Mr. Baird if you don't have a solution yourself.  Just saying "Don't bomb Iran" isn't good enough if you don't have an alternative, so let's hear it.  We're waiting".  He again was speechless.

After 11:30, it was time to wrap things up.  Being that I actually have ideas for the Representative, I stuck around and spoke with him face to face.  I told him that the biggest complaint right now is the lack of electricity.  Most Iraqis are without electricity and have to use generators.  Using generators means that you can't power all of the stuff you want to do when you're at home, so you have to pick and choose.  That usually means the air conditioner and a few appliances at most.  I told him to get electricity up and running as quickly as possible and the insurgency will go down. 

Think about that for a moment.  If you're in 120 degree heat all day, every day, you tend to get angry and snap at the smallest things.  If you have electricity and are sitting in a 70 degree room when it's 120 outside, then you feel much better.  Besides, when you go from 70-120 degrees, you tend to want to stay inside as much as possible.

I thanked the Representative for his time, told him thanks for taking a beating, thanked him for truly researching the topic and coming to his own conclusions, even though it meant that he would be taking the road he thought was right instead of what was popular.  That to me is what leadership is about.  It means that you follow in your own heart what you think is right and what is in the best interests of the people.  No one, with the exception of Jon Soltz even began to know what they were talking about, let alone actually have been in Iraq to understand the complexities of the region.

With General Petraeus's report coming from the White House (which Baird said was a mistake), he said he agrees with General Petraeus in that we should start bringing our guys home in around the springtime if current levels of Iraqi progress holds. 

Mr. Baird also suggested that we have another town hall meeting in April to discuss any successes or failures.  He mentioned that his general thoughts are, sustain the current levels until April, then gradually bring troops home as the Iraqis start to fend for themselves.  They are already starting to show signs of standing on their own two feet, so why yank the rug out from underneath them when they are still in training wheels?

He also mentioned that there will be car bombs that go off and occasional assassinations, but it will go down.  And I believe him.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-qaeda, Brian Baird, insurgent, iran, iraq, Jon Soltz, nuclear program, Politics

If this is true, I want Ali dead:

 

By mid-October, CIA case officers and Army, Navy, and Air Force Special Operations units were working together in unusual harmony, using high-tech air support and, at one point, mounting what Rumsfeld gleefully called "the first cavalry charge of the 21st century" to kill, capture or chase away thousands of jihadists. The Taliban fled for the hills. Bin Laden, it seemed, would be cornered. Indeed, on Dec. 15, CIA operatives listening on a captured jihadist radio could hear bin Laden himself say "Forgive me" to his followers, pinned down in their mountain caves near Tora Bora.

As it happened, however, the hunt for bin Laden was unraveling on the very same day. As recalled by Gary Berntsen, the CIA officer in charge of the covert team working with the Northern Alliance, code-named Jawbreaker, the military refused his pleas for 800 Army Rangers to cut off bin Laden's escape. Maj. Gen. Dell Dailey, the Special Ops commander sent out by Central Command, told Berntsen he was doing an "excellent job," but that putting in ground troops might offend America's Afghan allies. "I don't give a damn about offending our allies!" Berntsen yelled, according to his 2005 book, "Jawbreaker." "I only care about eliminating Al Qaeda and delivering bin Laden's head in a box!" (Dailey, now the State Department's counterterror chief, told NEWSWEEK that he did not want to discuss the incident, except to say that Berntsen's story is "unsubstantiated.")

Berntsen went to Crumpton, his boss at the CIA, who described to NEWSWEEK his frantic efforts to appeal to higher authority. Crumpton called CENTCOM's commander, Gen. Tommy Franks. It would take "weeks" to mobilize a force, Franks responded, and the harsh, snowy terrain was too difficult and the odds of getting bin Laden not worth the risk. Frustrated, Crumpton went to the White House and rolled out maps of the Pakistani-Afghan border on a small conference table. President Bush wanted to know if the Pakistanis could sweep up Al Qaeda on the other side. "No, sir," Crumpton responded. (Vice President Dick Cheney did not say a word, Crumpton recalled.) The meeting was inconclusive. Franks, who declined to comment, has written in his memoirs that he decided, along with Rumsfeld, that to send troops into the mountains would risk repeating the mistake of the Soviets, who were trapped and routed by jihadist guerrilla fighters in the 1980s (helped out, it should be recalled, with Stinger missiles provided by the CIA).

To catch bin Laden, the CIA was left to lean on local tribesmen, a slender reed. NEWSWEEK recently interviewed two of the three tribal chiefs involved in the operation, Hajji Zahir and Hajji Zaman. They claimed that the CIA overly relied on the third chieftain, Hazrat Ali—and that Ali was paid off (to the tune of $6 million) by Al Qaeda to let bin Laden slip away. Ali could not be reached for comment. But Crumpton, who admits that he has no hard evidence, told NEWSWEEK he is "confident" that a payoff allowed Al Qaeda to escape. Unsure which side would win, some tribesmen apparently hedged by taking money from both sides.

 

Allowing Al-Qaeda members or even Osama Bin Laden to escape is in of itself something I wouldn't have a bit of problem with a member of our military killing this guy.  To take $6 million from us and then let our enemies slip by means only that he can't be trusted and he can't be allowed to live.  Of course, that all depends on if it's true or not.

The article shows that had we gotten our act together and worked towards finding Osama instead of worrying about success rates and offending people, it's quite conceivable that Bin Laden would be in the hands of US interrogators or even dead now.

 

The American effort to chase bin Laden into this forbidding realm was hobbled and clumsy from the start. While the terrain required deep local knowledge and small units, career officers in the U.S. military have long been wary of the Special Operations Forces best suited to the task. In the view of the regular military, such "snake eaters" have tended to be troublesome, resistant to spit-and-polish discipline and rulebooks. Rather than send the snake eaters to poke around mountain caves and mud-walled compounds, the U.S. military wanted to fight on a grander stage, where it could show off its mobility and firepower. To the civilian bosses at the Pentagon and the eager-to-please top brass, Iraq was a much better target.

Am I an asshole for thinking that these "snake eaters" might be the best for the job? I don't care how they operate as long as the job gets done.  You had to torture Bin Laden's bodyguard to get to Bin Laden before you capture him?  Wow, that's a neat story.  I'm sure you'll share it with your buddy's back at home.  Let's go get a bite to eat.  I wouldn't think twice about things like that.  If smaller forces are better than larger ones in this situation, THEN USE SMALLER FORCES!  Hell, just use LOTS of smaller forces if it's a dick waving contest you're after, but I want the guy responsible for killing 3,000 members of my nation captured or killed.

 

The frustrations of the snake eaters are well illustrated by the recollections of Adam Rice, the operations sergeant of a Special Forces A-Team working out of a safe house near Kandahar in 2002. With his close-cropped orange hair and beard, wearing a yellow Hawaiian shirt around the safe house, Rice was not the sort to shine at inspections at boot camp. But he had lived in Kabul as a child (his father had been a USAID worker) and he had been a Special Forces operator for more than two decades. In July 2002, a CIA case officer told Rice that a figure believed to be Mullah Omar, the one-eyed chief of the Taliban, had been tracked by aerial drone to a location in the Shahikot Valley, a short flight to the north. The Taliban chief and his entourage would be vulnerable to a helicopter assault, but the Americans had to move quickly.

Rice was not optimistic about getting timely permission. Whenever he and his men moved within five kilometers of the safe house, he says, they had to file a request form known as a 5-W, spelling out the who, what, when, where and why of the mission. Permission from headquarters took hours, and if shooting might be involved, it was often denied. To go beyond five kilometers required a CONOP (for "concept of operations") that was much more elaborate and required approval from two layers in the field, and finally the Joint Special Operations Task Force at Baghram air base near Kabul. To get into a fire fight, the permission of a three-star general was necessary. "That process could take days," Rice recalled to NEWSWEEK. He often typed forms while sitting on a 55-gallon drum his men had cut in half to make a toilet seat. "We'd be typing in 130-degree heat while we're crapping away with bacillary dysentery and sometimes the brass at Kandahar or Baghram would kick back and tell you the spelling was incorrect, that you weren't using the tab to delimit the form correctly."

But Rice made his request anyway. Days passed with no word. The window closed; the target—whether Mullah Omar or not—moved on.

 

COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!  If you know where someone is, then go get them.  Don't wait for permission.  I would gladly give you the shirt of my back and a place to stay if the military brass came down hard on you and you lost everything.  I would gladly open my doors to welcome you if you had caught Omar, Bin Laden, or al-Zawahiri.  GLADLY!

 

But wait, it gets better:

 

In Pakistan, President Musharraf was wary of his American allies in the War on Terror. In 2002, he told a high-ranking British official: "My great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends." According to this official, who declined to be identified sharing a confidence, Musharraf cited the U.S. pullouts from Vietnam in the 1970s, Lebanon in the 1980s and Somalia in the 1990s. Still, he quickly gave the Americans considerable leeway to operate inside Pakistan. He did not demand prior approval of Predator attacks, and he allowed "hot pursuit" for American forces five kilometers or more inside the border. (With a grim laugh, one U.S. officer interviewed by NEWSWEEK recalled watching on Predator video as insurgents fled across the border and stopped on what they thought was safe terrain—until a U.S. Special Ops helo reared up and blasted them.) Musharraf told the Americans he understood that they would do what they had to do to attack high-value targets, although he indicated the Pakistanis might have to issue pro forma denunciations. His one request, said a U.S. official who dealt directly with the Pakistani leader, was that bin Laden not be captured alive and be brought to trial in Pakistan.

 

See what I mean about pulling out too early in the case of Iraq?  We have earned a reputation of leaving our friends high and dry.  Do that, and when you need someone most, they tend to be wary of you.  The only reason why Musharraf worked with us on this was because 9/11 was an event that was unprecedented and the entire world had been with us on that.  However, Musharraf knew that if Bin Laden were captured and brought to trial in Pakistan, it would be a bloodbath to free him.

 

Personally, I don't care how the job gets done, I just want it done.  Get Bin Laden.  This article shows great incompetence in Rumsfeld and others and if true, would make me hate him and other people like him who made such classic blunders in getting Bin Laden.  The longer he goes without capture or being killed, the more people will start to think maybe we're just that "paper tiger" that he's said we were all along.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-qaeda, Osama Bin Laden

310 people dead.  250 of them militants.  Is Pakistan starting to get on the ball when it comes to Al-Qaeda?  With 90,000 soldiers deployed to the region, that very well may be coming to fruit.

I really want to believe that Pakistan is trying to help for doing what's right.  Instead I think Musharraf is trying to cut out the people who are acting against him and if he captures or kills Bin Laden, that would be seen as a major thing in the eyes of the United States.  To do that would mean a much cozier relationship with Pakistan, something Musharraf needs plenty of right now, especially with people nipping at his heels trying to get his job.

The main problem I have with Pakistan is that they seem to be blocking us from time to time and only offering us a sacrificial bone to temporarily satisfy us while trying to appease the hardliners in his country.  If Musharraf does indeed bring in Bin Laden, that changes the entire landscape of things.  It certainly would be a major symbolic defeat of Al-Qaeda.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-qaeda, Pakistan, terrorism

Now we're talking!  US troops are allowed to enter into Pakistan under the following scenarios:

 

• “Hot pursuit” of al-Qaida, Taliban and terrorist command-and-control targets “from AFG into Pakistan (must be continuous and uninterrupted).”
• If the head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, approved direct action “against The Big 3,” listed as Osama bin Laden; his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri; and Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar. The three are still believed to be hiding in the border region.
• If the Defense secretary approved such an incursion.

What that means is, is if we are chasing after a terrorist or we know exactly where one of the "big 3" are, we're cleared to go into Pakistan.

I'm just glad our guys have the balls to do something like this.  I get the feeling that under a Democratic President, we'd be asking for permission from Pakistan to go after Bin Laden.

So there won't be any "Dukes Of Hazzard" type of us stopping our pursuit once we get to the border.  I noticed that the "geographic limits" are "no deeper than 6.2 miles.  Personally, I don't care if we're pursuing guys all the way across the border and into the capital city.  If we're after a bad guy, I say we chase him down until he escapes, he's captured, or he's killed.

 

Of course, Pakistan denies all this:

Told of the guidelines, Pakistani military spokesman Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad said, “This is all nonsense. Pakistan never allowed the coalition forces to enter into our territory while chasing militants. There was no such agreement, there was no such understanding.”

That may very well be true.  But that doesn't change a thing.  If we know where Osama is and we go after him and do get him, Pakistan suddenly has a major problem on their hands.  They were trying to block us from coming in and they had a most wanted terrorist within their lands.

But the opposite might be true.  They may be saying "no" but that may only be for the public to see.  Privately they may be saying "come on in".

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-qaeda, military, Pakistan, terrorism

Bill Clinton's mountain of evidence against his lies over his response to the rise of Al-Qaeda is getting bigger by the moment.  Now the recent CIA inspector general's report has flatly contradicted Clintons statements that he "worked hard to kill him" and "authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him".

 

Yet, Michael Scheuer, our CIA Bin Laden head honcho flatly contradicts that.

(Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)

So there's no immediate comment?  Why not?  Because they want this to blow over.  They want Clinton to still appear bulletproof to the liberal idiots who don't want to ask the tough questions about the run up to 9/11.

I want answers of who did what, why, when, and what can be done to prevent it in the future.  I'm willing to forgive Clinton if he actually came up and said "I didn't take the threat seriously enough.  I failed the American people.  I was too involved with Monica to care.  I thought I'd have another chance."

Something of an admission of what went wrong and where would be the least that he owes me and the rest of America.  However, he won't do that.  He's continually wanting to place blame on the Bush administration and Republicans.  Hell in one of his interviews he says that the same people who blame him now were the same people who didn't take the warnings from Clinton seriously enough.

That well may be true, but as President, you have a moral obligation to protect America and it's citizens.  He should have sent the military in and gave them blanket orders: "capture if you can, kill if you must". 

Hell, even I thought the 1998 missile lobbing at Bin Laden was a bit of a "wag the dog" event.  I was wrong then.  See Bill how easy it is to admit you're wrong?  I fully admit that I didn't think terrorism was that big of a deal in 1998.  However, I don't have the CIA telling me about threats.  I don't have the FBI looking into things.  I don't have the vast intelligence and military capabilities that you had at your disposal when the threat of Al-Qaeda was growing.

However Bill, once Osama and al-Zahirwi are dead and gone, then the healing can begin.  Until that day happens, and it MUST happen by American hands, it will be salt in the wound.  If either of these two die of old age or something similar, I won't forgive EITHER President Bush or Clinton.  I want them both looking down the barrel of a Navy SEALS' weapon or waking up with their throats slit.

 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: 9-11, al-qaeda, Bill Clinton, lies, Politics, terrorism

Al-Qaeda fighters attacked a village and killed one of their leaders because the village is rising up against Al-Qaeda.  Good plan idiots, that will only make them hate you even more.

“They were shouting Allah Akbar and Curse be upon the Renegades,” said Umm Ahmed, who was among the three women wounded in the attack. She refused to give her full name fearing retribution. “This attack will cause the uprising against them to spread to other villages.”

See!  I told you so.  Killing people doesn't put you on their side, it only strengthens their resolve against you.  It means that they will want US soldiers around more for protection and hunting you down.

Do you think that Americans will like Al-Qaeda after the events of 9/11?  Of course not, people wanted you eradicated.  I personally wanted to drop nuclear weapons on Afghanistan unless Bin Laden was handed over within 24 hours.  But that's just my rage working up again.

Al-Qaeda is trying to overreach itself and it alienating those who would support them to begin with.  I'm wondering if we're seeing a turning point in support of Al-Qaeda.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-qaeda, terrorism

Wait a minute.  I thought the Iraqis wanted us all gone immediately.  I thought they hated our guts and wanted nothing to do with us.  If that's the case, why are Iraqi civilians risking their necks to save US soldiers?  Oh that's right.  Because what you've been told by the media is bullshit.

An Iraqi man saved the lives of four U.S. Soldiers and eight civilians when he intercepted a suicide bomber during a Concerned Citizens meeting in the town of al-Arafia Aug. 18.

They don't mention the mans name, but anyone who acts like that is a hero in my book.

Later that night, the Concerned Citizens group contacted the local National Police director, Lt. Col. Samir, with the location of the al-Qaeda cell believed to be responsible for the attack. The National Police immediately conducted a raid that resulted in four arrests.

Sounds to me like the Iraqi citizens are starting to get a foothold on their area and by working with US soldiers, they are starting to get rid of terrorist in their neighborhoods.

So tell me liberals, how can you turn your back on people like this?  How can you want to pull out our guys when they face dangers like this.  That makes you a coward and a traitor to these people in my book.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-qaeda, iraq, military, surge, terrorism

Has anyone else noticed that Al-Jazeera CONSISTENTLY gets Al-Qaeda tapes? They are always the ones airing these things and then they won't discuss how or when they get the tapes. I'm thinking that the CIA should infiltrate Al-Jazeera and find out where and how they are getting these tapes, trace it back to their source, and kill these fuckers. They love nothing more then to rub our noses in the fact they haven't been caught yet. Perhaps a bit of cloak and dagger could help things immensely. But then again, they could already be doing these things already. Hopefully they are smarter then I am and have a vast network of HUMINT going on in Al-Jazeera.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-jazeera, al-qaeda, cia