I think it's time to pull out of the war. It's time for us as Americans to start worrying about our own problems, rather than another nation's. I don't think its fair that we have been in this war for such a long time instead of taking care of issues in our own country. It's time to bring our soldiers home.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/342659/Bernanke-Is-Wrong!-The-Economy-Is-Getting-Worse-Not-Better-Schiff-Says

This war may have not been a good idea at first, but if we pull out too early, it could be disastrous to us as a nation. The world will look at us as cowards who cannot fix this mess we're in. We need to go forward and finish what we started. We cannot back down.

We were attacked on 9-11 by a terrorist organization, NOT a government. We should have never invaded and occupied Iraq or Afghanistan.

Why doesn't our spending money on these wars bother more people?

"I think it's time to pull out of the war. It's time for us as Americans to start worrying about our own problems"

The Hell of 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan by Al Qaeda with full sheltering rights from the Taliban. If this wasn't, and still is one of the biggest American "problems" of all times then one can can only imagine what is. America has never fully recovered, economically or mentally from the original act or the cascading affects to our country and every American citizen. Never again!

"I think it's time to pull out of the war. It's time for us as Americans to start worrying about our own problems"

The Hell of 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan by Al Qaeda with full sheltering rights from the Taliban. If this wasn't, and still is one of the biggest American "problems" of all times then one can only imagine what is. America has never fully recovered, economically or mentally from the original act or the cascading affects to our country and every American citizen. Never again!

The rules murdering our troops:

September 24, 2009

When enemy action kills our troops, it's unfortu nate. When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it's unforgivable.

In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.

Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:

* Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support.

* If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat.

These ROE are a cave-in to the Taliban's shameless propaganda campaign that claimed innocents were massacred every time our aircraft appeared overhead. (Afghan President Mohammed Karzai and our establishment media backed the terrorists.)

The Taliban's goal was to level the playing field -- to deny our troops their technological edge. Our enemies more than succeeded.

And what has our concern for the lives of Taliban sympathizers accomplished? The Taliban now make damned sure that civilians are present whenever they conduct an ambush or operation.

So they attack -- and we quit the fight, lugging our dead and wounded back to base.

We've been through this b.s. before. In Iraq, we wanted to show respect to our enemies, so the generals announced early on that we wouldn't enter mosques. The result? Hundreds of mosques became terrorist safe houses, bomb factories and weapons caches.

Why is this so hard to figure out? We tell our enemies we won't attack X. So they exploit X. Who wouldn't?

It isn't just that war is hell. It's that war must be hell, otherwise why would the enemy ever quit?

This week's rumblings from the White House suggest that we may, at last, see a revised strategy that concentrates on killing our deadliest enemies -- but I'll believe it when I see the rounds go down-range.

Meanwhile, our troops die because our leaders are moral cowards.

Over the decades, political correctness insinuated itself into the ranks of our "Washington player" generals and admirals. We now have four-stars who believe that improving our enemies' self-esteem is a crucial wartime goal.

And the Army published its disastrous Counterinsurgency Manual a few years back -- doctrine written by military intellectuals who, instead of listening to Infantry squad leaders, made a show of consulting "peace advocates" and "humanitarian workers."

The result was a manual based on a few heavily edited case studies "proving" that the key to success in fighting terrorists is to hand out soccer balls to worm-eaten children. The doctrine ignored the brutal lessons of 3,000 years of history -- because history isn't politically correct (it shows, relentlessly, that the only effective way to fight faith-fueled insurgents is with fire and sword).

The New York Times lavished praise on the manual. What does that tell you?

A few senior officers continue to push me to "lay off" the Counterinsurgency Manual. Sorry, but I'm more concerned about supporting the youngest private on patrol than I am with the reputation of any general.

As a real general put it a century ago, "The purpose of an Army is to fight." And the purpose of going to war is to win (that dirty word). It's not to sacrifice our own troops to make sad-sack do-gooders back home feel good.

We need to recognize that true morality lies in backing our troops, not in letting them die for whacko theories.

The next time you read about the death of a soldier or Marine in Afghanistan, don't just blame the Taliban. Blame the generals and politicians who sent them to war, then took away their weapons.

No time to cut and run:

More troop reinforcements are key to defeating Taliban

Friday, September 18, 2009

Students of history know it's never a good policy to bet against the United States military. American warriors have a knack for turning the tide toward victory just when things look bleakest.

Consider Pearl Harbor. A devastating sneak attack damaged 21 Navy ships and killed some 2,400 Americans. Yet within six months, our crippled Navy was able to prevail at the Battle of Midway, sinking four Japanese carriers and beginning a trans-Pacific push to V-J Day.

More recently, many had given up on our chances for success in Iraq. In April 2007, just three months after President Bush ordered a change of strategy in Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, "This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything." Yet over the next year, American warriors executed Gen. David H. Petraeus' strategy, restored order and began to redeploy out of Iraq ahead of schedule. That war isn't "won" yet, of course. But it isn't lost either -- and it won't be.

These days the focus is on Afghanistan.

Conservative columnist George Will recently declared that American forces had accomplished all they could there. He urged that we withdraw over the horizon, keeping troops out of harm's way and using air strikes to maintain order as necessary.

The temptation is understandable. Americans have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, and everyone looks forward to the day we can "bring the boys home."

However, the war cannot be effectively waged merely with air power, predator drones and special forces. Precise intelligence is needed to use smart bombs effectively. Yet few Afghans would risk their lives to provide such intelligence unless they can be sure American forces will be available to protect them.

Pulling troops out of Afghanistan before the situation is stable there would allow the Taliban -- which we ousted from power eight years ago -- to reassert its influence not only in Afghanistan but also next door in nuclear-armed Pakistan, where the Pakistani Taliban is influential.

The fact is that success in Afghanistan, like success in Iraq before it, will require firm and patient presidential leadership. President Obama recently received an assessment of the war from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan and a proponent of the sort of counterinsurgency plan that his current boss, Gen. Petraeus, employed in Iraq.

Mr. Obama should give his military commanders the best chance for success by approving their requests for additional troops and resources. That doesn't mean feeding forces in slowly, though. An incremental approach that defers any requested troop reinforcements could jeopardize the success of the strategy.

During the last several years, with the focus on Iraq, the U.S. has tried a "small footprint" strategy aimed at limiting the troops on the ground and focusing solely on al Qaeda rather than the Taliban-led insurgent coalition. This strategy has failed, allowing the Taliban to regroup and rearm.

It's time for a more robust strategy to defeat the Taliban, even though doing so will be protracted, expensive and grueling. Our warriors and our Afghan allies can prevail, especially since the Taliban remains extremely unpopular, and most Afghans want to see the U.S. succeed. When we do, it will send a powerful message to America's friends and enemies alike.

Every war ends in a different fashion. The war in Afghanistan, and the greater war against Islamist terrorism, won't end (as World War II did) with a treaty signing on the battleship Missouri. They won't end (as World War I did) with a treaty signing at Versailles Hall of Mirrors.

But with proper leadership and support for our troops, today's wars will end, as have so many others, with the United States victorious. This is no time to bet against America's military.

.

Truth is Bush had 7 years in Afghanistan and lost!

What makes anyone think Obama can win?

Same is true in Iraq.

Bush lost Iraq so what makes anyone believe Obama can win Iraq.

===========================

No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus
11 September 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/5rkmym
The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.
In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle".
When asked if US troops could withdraw from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year, he said that would be "doable".
In his next job leading the US Central Command, Gen Petraeus will also oversee operations in Afghanistan.
He said "the trends in Afghanistan have not gone in the right direction... and that has to be addressed".
Afghanistan remained a "hugely important endeavour", he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7610405.stm

General Sanchez: US will not win in Iraq
Sanchez, former U.S. commander in Iraq, calls war 'a nightmare with no end in sight' / October 13, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2qobka
ARLINGTON, Va. – The former top commander of U.S. troops in Iraq slammed the handling of the war and gave a bleak assessment of the current situation in Iraq.
“There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight,” retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez told a convention of military journalists on Friday.
Sanchez commanded U.S. troops in Iraq from June 2003 to July 2004. His controversial tenure saw the capture of Saddam Hussein and the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi government, but also the rise of the insurgency and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56997&archive=true

HALLIBURTON CHENEY, OLD MAN RUMMY AND DUMMY BUSH LOST TWO WARS IN AFGHANISTAN & IRAQ WITH THE BEST MILITARY ON EARTH!!!

THESE THREE STOOGES LOST THE HEARTS & MINDS OF THE WHOLE MIDDLE EAST!!!

Military can't win in Iraq: General Petraeus Says
March 10, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2n3l43
AS THE new US commander in Iraq warned there was no military solution to the conflict and the US needed to talk to insurgents, the US Democratic Party leadership has finally bitten the bullet and proposed a deadline for the withdrawal of US combat forces by October next year.
"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq," General David Petraeus said. "Military action is necessary to help improve security … but it is not sufficient."
Addressing massed ranks of reporters in Baghdad's fortified green zone, General Petraeus said Iraqi leaders would eventually have to sit down and talk with some of the violent factions tearing the country apart.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/military-cant-win-in-iraq-general/2007/03/09/1173166991655.html

Retired Generals Criticize Bush’s Plan for Iraq
http://tinyurl.com/2ptvro January 18, 2007

Gen. Jack Kean, Lt. Gen. William Odom, Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, and Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey testifying today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

A panel of retired generals told a United States Senate committee today that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country.
“Too little and too late,” is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The additional troops are intended to help pacify Baghdad and a restive province, but General Hoar said American leaders had failed to understand the political forces at work in the country. “The solution is political, not military,” he said.

“A fool’s errand,” was the judgment of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War. He said other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, noting that “our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer.”
Describing the situation in Iraq as “desperate but not terminal,” he said Iraqis had to try to make political deals domestically and negotiate for stability with neighboring nations, particularly Syria and Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/middleeast/18cnd-general.html?ex=1182744000&en=0f212ce68c54ef6b&ei=5070

"Truth is Bush had 7 years in Afghanistan and lost!"


The Iraq war is considered practically won and a major Bush success by everyone except Caspian who is too much of a child to ever admit he was as wrrrrrrrrong! A little bit of memory should have reminded you that there were no more Al Qaeda left to kill in Afghanistan by the time the Iraq war started. They were all either dead or fled to Pakistan, besides the balance of the Coalition was still left in Afghanistan. You're probably the last person on earth who's opinion on the subject has any credibility whatsoever. Nader/Paul/Pelosi pacifists have only one goal in life and it is certainly not to win wars, but is to punish those who dare to defend our country.

To The Village Idiot:


The Iraq War was handed to Obama on a golden platter as a resounding success......It's only Obama's to lose now should he not support the Iraqi Government as President Bush would have supported them. During the election, not that long ago the Democrats insisted that they would make Afghanistan, "the good war" their crowning achievement (election rhetoric). Now you and them have the audacity to suggest that its too hard and not worth the fight. Very very predictable. Just let John McCain step in for Obama on winning in Afghanistan and relief will be just an election away. Just more proof that the left can't ever fight their way out of a wet paper bag and let us just all remember that Progressives and the Democratic left could never defend America or fight its wars. America can ill afford any more leftists in our elected government.

FLEE FROM AFGHANISTAN??? ARE THESE THE SAME DEMOCRATS WHO RAN AGAINST JOHN McCAIN???????????????

---------------------------------------

New Ad: Hillary Promises Never to Be Too Busy to Defend Our National Security
30-Second Television Spot, “True” To Air in the Lone Star State

The Clinton campaign today announced it is broadcasting a new television ad in Texas highlighting Senator Clinton’s promise to defend our nation’s security by fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, commitment to bringing our troops home from Iraq, and readiness to be Commander-in-Chief.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Clinton worked to provide body armor to our troops fighting in Iraq and deliver health care benefits to our veterans. Senator Obama, as chairman of an oversight committee charged with the force of fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, was too busy running for President to hold even one hearing.

The 30-second spot, entitled “True,” comes the day before Texas voters head to the polls on March 4th.

Following is the script for the ad.

Hillary For President
“True”
TV : 30

Announcer: Barack Obama says he has the judgment to be president.

But as chairman of an oversight committee charged with the force of fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan–he was too busy running for president to hold even one hearing.

Barack Obama: “I became chairman of this committee, at the beginning of this campaign-at the beginning of 2007, so it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.”

Announcer: Hillary Clinton will never be too busy to defend our national security-bringing our troops home from Iraq and pursing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Hillary Clinton: “I’m Hillary Clinton and I approved this message.

I guess Bill F. and Fox News have military expertise and know better than General Petraeus?

al Qaeda resides in over 60 countries worldwide and Iraq was not one of the 60.

Iran and the Iraqi Shites won in Iraq.

The USA only controls the Green Zone and the Iraqi oil fields.

BUSH AND CHENEY LOST THE HEARTS AND MINDS "BIG TIME"!

SMARTEN UP!

----------------------------

Generals Speak Out Against Rumsfeld
DoD Determines US Foreign Policy, PERIOD!!! Congress is SUPERFLUOUS!!! The only thing to FEAR, is NOT ENOUGH FEAR.

"We went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn't build a strong team."
-- Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste.

"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results."
-- Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold.

"They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign."
-- Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs.

"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us. When we don't see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission."
-- Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former chief of U.S. Central Command.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. ... I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is."
-- Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack.

"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. ... Mr. Rumsfeld must step down."
-- Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

Perfect security is Not attainable at any price!!!
STAR WARS & other MISSILE DEFENSE for a Trillion Dollars may stop 8 atomic war heads, but 2 will still hit their mark.

What can be achieved besides mutually assured destruction, is BANKRUPTING the US TREASURY.
-- Retired Army General Wesley K. Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

==========================

General Anthony Zinni, USMC, (Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004 http://tinyurl.com/8ldmo

I think the first mistake that was made was misjudging the success of containment. I heard the president say, not too long ago, I believe it was with the interview with Tim Russert that ... I'm not sure ... but at some point I heard him say that "containment did not work." That's not true.

So to say containment didn't work, I think is not only wrong from the experiences we had then, but the proof is in the pudding, in what kind of military our troops faced when we went in there.

The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one month before the war, and Senator Lugar asked me: "General Zinni, do you feel the threat from Saddam Hussein is imminent?" I said: "No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of those."
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=2208&from_page=../index.cfm

To the useful idiot for the corporate Rightwing:

------------------------

Why Iraq Was a Mistake
By Lt. General GREGORY NEWBOLD, Retired
http://tinyurl.com/p4j93 Apr. 09, 2006
From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war.

Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable.

But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda.

I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html

========================

Gen. Zinni:' They've Screwed Up'
Former Top Commander Condemns Pentagon Officials Over Iraq War
http://tinyurl.com/yr2bq

Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress:“This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

"Why Iraq Was a Mistake
By Lt. General GREGORY NEWBOLD, Retired
http://tinyurl.com/p4j93 Apr. 09, 2006"


Caspian you just refuse to be honest using hopelessly outdated 2006 assessments which were at a time when it looked like the left was going to get their way and we would cut and run from Iraq........WHICH WE DIDN'T. THANKS TO THE SURGE AND THE FACT THAT IRAQIS TURNED AGAINST AL QAEDA AND THE INSURGENTS, EVENTS CHANGED 180 DEGREES. IF NEWBOLD OR ANY OF YOUR OTHER WITNESSES HAD THIS KNOWLEDGE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE WRITTEN WHAT YOU ARE POSTING TODAY!!!! THIS IS WHY VILLAGE IDIOTS NEVER HAVE A CASE - THEY OMIT YEARS OF EVENTS TO THEIR LIKING AND LIVE IN A MAKE BELIEVE WORLD OF THEIR OWN.
History has gone on to prove that opinions such as Newbold's, Sanchez's, etc.were dead wrong based on the almost final outcome in Iraq. None of these people can be found giving such stupid opinions in 2009.

There is no final outcome in Iraq.

Petraeus said he will "NEVER" use the word Victory when describing Iraq.

Iraq is still a mess and all you want to do is blame Obama for the Bush nightmare.

Can all these Generals be wrong?

I THINK NOT!

=============================

General Norman Schwartzkopf : Iraq Quagmire For USA
http://tinyurl.com/ymngms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jteZR77knz4&eurl=

General Norman Schwartzkopf : Iraq Quagmire For USA
Iraq Quagmire: That, George Bush, knew!
http://tinyurl.com/2q9ex6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mO4UCYyef8

Rumsfeld Allies Launch Smear Campaign Against NATO General James Jones / http://tinyurl.com/ycj4cg October 13, 2006
Gen. James Jones, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, was quoted in Bob Woodward’s State of Denial as believing the Iraq war is a “debacle” and that “the Joint Chiefs have been systematically emasculated by Rumsfeld.” Jones is also quoted as cautioning Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace: “You should not be the parrot on the secretary’s shoulder.”
To the dismay of Rumsfeld and his supporters, Jones has stood by the criticisms reported in the book. He recently said, “I don’t challenge Bob’s characterization of it, except that had I seen the book, I probably would have suggested that the tone was more critical than I intended it to be. … I did talk about Iraq with a concern that Iraq deserves.”
Jones now finds himself the target of a smear campaign at the hands of Rumsfeld’s allies:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/13/rumsfeld-jones

Untested administration hawks clamor for war
Beware of war hawks who never served in the military.
http://tinyurl.com/yvkumd
That, in essence, was the message of retired four-star Marine Corps general Anthony Zinni, a highly decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and the White House point man on the Middle East crisis. Zinni is one of a growing number of uniformed officers, in and out of the Pentagon, urging caution on the issue of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

In an address recently in Florida, he warned his audience to watch out for the administration's civilian superhawks, most of whom avoided military service as best they could.
"If you ask me my opinion," said Zinni, referring to Iraq, "Gen. (Brent) Scowcroft, Gen. (Colin) Powell, Gen. (Norman) Schwarzkopf and Gen. Zinni maybe all see this the same way.
It might be interesting to wonder why all of the generals see it the same way, and all those (who) never fired a shot in anger (and) are really hellbent to go to war see it a different way. "That's usually the way it is in history," he said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-09-16-oplede_x.htm

Powell tried to talk Bush out of war
July 8, 2007 / http://tinyurl.com/3bljem
THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.
“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”
Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”
He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2042072.ece

==========================

Colin Powell Saying He Was Misled Before UN Speech on WMDs
http://tinyurl.com/6n9tg2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs&feature=related

Powell Says US Should Not Have Invaded Iraq
http://tinyurl.com/6zdvju
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FejQH_VCB24&feature=related

Colin Powell: I would shut Guantanamo down this afternoon
http://tinyurl.com/5asdgd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aW992-5zNg&NR=1

Gen. Colin Powell - "I Tried To Avoid This War."
http://tinyurl.com/6ju6f9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b32CpmZVYc&feature=related

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice Tell The Truth About Iraq in Feb. July 2001 / Iraq was no threat to any country and contained
http://tinyurl.com/2fhgd8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ&feature=related

"The world will look at us as cowards who cannot fix this mess we're in" (if we leave now).

Do you really think the Swiss would think we're cowards? Or the Swedes? Or Canadians or Argentinians or Ugandans? Seriously? I think that perception may be colored by an American's ego involvement (aka pride), and doesn't perhaps reflect the actual feelings of the people of other countries. If others would not view us as cowards, then our image in the world would not be hurt, only our self-image, and that should not be a factor in military involvement, Bill F and Mel Gibson's opinion notwithstanding.

"We cannot back down."

Just keep in mind that the former Soviet Union said that about their involvement in Afghanistan for ten years, and it cost them so much that it was a major factor in their economic and geopolitical collapse. Sure, we could loot Social Security (again) to support the war a while longer, but then that's how all military empires end,-in bankruptcy. It's not going to help us all that much simply to chase al Qaeda out of Afghanistan/Pakistan into, say, Somalia. Especially if it leaves us broke. Al Qaeda flooded into Iraq for a while after we destabilized that country, then moved again. They travel light, and can always find a place to go to if they can find sympathy. If they lose that, they go out of business.

Just saying.

Corporatists vs. Capitalists
09/16/2009 / http://tinyurl.com/mleh23
When I heard the word "corporatist" a couple of years ago, I laughed. I thought what a funny, made up, liberal word. I fancy myself a die-hard capitalist, so it seemed vaguely anti-business, so I was put off by it.
Well, as it turns out, it's a great word. It perfectly describes a great majority of our politicians and the infrastructure set up to support the current corporations in the country. It is not just inaccurate to call these people and these corporations capitalists; it is in fact the exact opposite of what they are.
Capitalists believe in choice, free markets and competition. Corporatists believe in the opposite. They don't want any competition at all. They want to eliminate the competition using their power, their entrenched position and usually the politicians they've purchased. They want to capture the system and use it only for their benefit.
I don't blame them. They're trying to make a buck. And it's a hell of a lot easier making money when you don't have competition or truly free markets or consumer choice. All of these corporations would absolutely love it if they were the only choice a consumer had.
http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2009/9/16/132137/869/Diary/Corporatists-vs-Capitalists

Pacifists or Cowards? Sometimes one is an excuse for the other.

---------------------------------------

Fighting "the good war"

August 24, 2009

Afghanistan was supposed to be the good war — the one Democrats said we should be fighting instead of Iraq. We heard it over and over again during the presidential campaign, as if to exorcise the image that a Democrat wasn't tough enough to assume the role of commander in chief. Candidate Obama repeatedly called the war in Iraq "a dangerous distraction" from the fight we should be waging and promised to "tak(e) the fight to al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan." But with a new poll out showing that a majority of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting, it won't be long before Democrats decide to turn tail.

Afghanistan has always been as difficult a challenge as Iraq, if not more difficult. It is both larger and more populous than Iraq, with a population that is less educated, more tribal, and used to repelling foreign invaders over the centuries. The war in Afghanistan was originally conceived as a necessary war after nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives in an attack planned there, so rooting out the Taliban supporters of al-Qaida was viewed as justified. Now, however, some Americans have changed their minds.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in mid-August shows that a bare majority, 51 percent, now question whether the fight in Afghanistan has been worth waging. But the poll reflects an interesting divide. Democrats are far more skeptical than Republicans. Seven in 10 Democrats now say the war hasn't been worth the costs, while 70 percent of Republicans say it is worth fighting, with Independents evenly split 49-49 percent.

The U.S. has doubled the number of American troops in Afghanistan, which now stands at 68,000, but more are needed. Even with the additional 33,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, the numbers of security forces in the country are far smaller than similar forces in Iraq. And the fact is, Americans only support wars they think they're winning. Public opinion turned against the war in Iraq when Americans believed it could not be won.

As National Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot observed recently at Commentary Magazine's Contentions, "the same dynamic applies as that which held in Iraq and in most of our other wars: the public is skeptical because they don't see enough signs of progress. ... Only by adequately resourcing the war effort and pursuing an effective counterinsurgency strategy can the U.S. armed forces make the progress necessary to raise public support for the war effort and win what President Obama has just described as a 'war of necessity.'"

It is easy to believe that the danger posed by terrorism is waning — we have not had an attack on American soil in nearly eight years, after all. But it would be foolhardy to believe that those intent on the destruction of our way of life have simply moved on or are so weakened that they pose little threat to us.

GENERAL RAY ODIERNO WAS RIGHT ABOUT IRAQ:

ON THIS MEMORIAL DAY, ONE HERO STANDS OUT

May 23, 2009

This Memorial Day Weekend, between the hotdogs and the potato salad, pause to remember the immense sacrifices those in uniform made to defend our freedom.

HOW THE MILITARY IS PLANNING FOR THE WARS OF TOMORROW

In prairie towns and great cities, ceremonies honor those who fell under our flag. Some events are well attended

GENERAL RAY ODIERNO WAS RIGHT ABOUT IRAQ:

ON THIS MEMORIAL DAY, ONE HERO STANDS OUT

May 23, 2009

This Memorial Day Weekend, between the hotdogs and the potato salad, pause to remember the immense sacrifices those in uniform made to defend our freedom.

HOW THE MILITARY IS PLANNING FOR THE WARS OF TOMORROW

In prairie towns and great cities, ceremonies honor those who fell under our flag. Some events are well attended. Others merely draw puzzled looks from passers-by. But those who served know what Memorial Day means. It isn't some horse-and-buggy-era custom, quaint and outdated. This holiday is ever renewed by the soldiers' blood that transfuses the body politic.

This year, in addition to honoring those who gave all or suffered grievous harm, I want to go a little way toward righting a grave wrong done to a courageous warrior, Rockaway's own General Ray Odierno.

In the early days of our engagement in Iraq, when too few troops struggled with a confused mission, the best commanders stepped up and did what needed to be done.

Among those who made the hard calls and damned the consequences, no one was more wronged by the media and the pundit platoon than Odierno.

As commander of the 4th Infantry Division in the first year of our "non-occupation," Odierno and his soldiers were assigned to the Sunni-Arab heartland from which Saddam Hussein's regime had drawn its strength.

Based in Tikrit - Saddam's home town - and other hotbeds of resistance, Odierno and his subordinates understood that bitter regime sympathizers had to understand that we meant business. So he showed them how tough American troops can be when violently challenged.

The result was an outcry from journalists: Odierno was too harsh, he was alienating the population. The model was supposed to be the kinder, gentler approach taken by the British, or by US commanders in areas that welcomed Saddam's removal.

But the Baathist heartland that backed Saddam had never felt the war, which was fought down south, in the Shia provinces. The Sunni-Arabs didn't feel defeated. They just felt cheated.

Ray Odierno fixed that.

His reward was to be pilloried as an uncomprehending brute who didn't understand the new age of conflict. One bestseller cast him as the prime villain in our mission in Iraq.

But journalists think tactically - the news business just wants to get the headline out. Few paused to analyze long-term strategic effects - nor was the press equipped with the experience to do so.

Fortunately, our defense establishment recognized Odierno's worth and ignored the clamor, promoting him from two stars to three, then to four. Today, he's our senior commander in Iraq. And events have fully vindicated him.

Where did Iraq's turnaround begin? Precisely where Odierno had demonstrated that America's soldiers can't and won't be defeated, as well as in the areas occupied by our Marines - who were also condemned for being "heavy-handed." When they wearied of al Qaeda, the Sunni Arabs needed to know they could count on the combat skills and grit of our troops. They knew it because Odierno and his 4th ID had taught them that painful lesson.

And where are Iraq's remaining problems today? Centered on the city of Mosul, where another commander's soft touch and vaunted "understanding" allowed the insurgents and terrorists to put down roots.

Things also went to the dogs down south, around Basra, whence the British had lectured us about "the right way to do this sort of thing," while hiding in a base they feared to leave. While the Sunni tribes "flipped" to our side, not a single Shia tribe went over to the Brits.

Because they didn't believe the Brits could or would fight beside them. Basra, which had fallen under the sway of Iranian-backed militias, was only freed of terror when the Iraqi army went in and did the job.

Far from being the clumsy giant caricatured by journalists who never served in the military, Odierno was the gut-instinct, hard-charging commander who did what needed to be done. He laid the groundwork for the success of the surge three years before Washington grasped the essentials.

Many other soldiers and Marines had a hand in the ultimate turnaround in Iraq. And the Iraqis themselves still have a long way to go to make the most of the gift of freedom they've been handed. But when all of the snap judgments have been exposed as wrong and unjust, history will remember Gen. Ray Odierno as the soldier who got it right.

If you're one of the diminishing number of Americans who visit our military cemeteries or the local graves with miniature flags on Memorial Day, be proud, as you honor the fallen, that we still have a few fighting generals who would rather kill our enemies than bury their own.

EAT CROW, IRAQ WAR SKEPTICS:

June 9, 2008

-- AMERICA has won, or is about to win, the Iraq war.
The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army - just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists - forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).

Sunnis and Shias alike applauded as their nation's army compelled insurgent militias to lay down their arms. The country's leading opposition newspaper, Azzaman, led the applause for the move into Mosul - a sign that national reconciliation in Iraq is under way and probably irreversible.

US combat deaths in May also were down to 20, the lowest monthly total since February 2004. The toll for May 2007 was 121.

In a Washington Post interview, CIA Director Michael Hayden said we're witnessing the "near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq."

The Bush administration has taken heaps of abuse for its Iraq policy, including its decision to launch the "surge" last December. Now the strategy, which our nation's "best and brightest" regularly dismissed as a failure, has cleared the way for the establishment of a secure democracy in Iraq and a lasting peace.

It would be foolish to pop open the victory champagne yet. The truce between the Shia and Sunni in Iraq remains fragile; al Qaeda may well launch one more last-ditch offensive there (a la Tet 1968), in order to discourage the US and/or Iraq publics on the eve of the elections.

Meanwhile, we're still fighting a vicious insurgency in Afghanistan, and have yet to root out the al Qaeda remnants of along the Afghan-Pakistan border. And the continued threat of home-grown terror cells keeps European governments nervous.

In wars, however, trends have their own momentum. And the trend is running away from al Qaeda and its jihadist allies - not only in Iraq but also across the Middle East.

According to Hayden, al Qaeda faces a similar strategic debacle in Saudi Arabia.

And al Qaeda's fugitive leadership is learning that its former safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border is no longer so safe. Thanks to cooperation with Pakistan's new government, unmanned US Predator drones recently killed two top al Qaeda leaders there.

Once Gen. David Petraeus is confirmed as commander of US forces in the Middle East in July, he'll be able to apply the same strategy for victory learned in the Iraq surge to the war in Afghanistan.

In short, the larger War on Terror may be reaching a tipping point similar to that of the Iraq war.

The US public and policymakers need to recognize how this happened - and draw lessons from this success.

1) We need to acknowledge that the Iraq war wasn't a "distraction" from the War on Terror, as critics still complain, but its centerpiece.

It's not mere coincidence that our success against al Qaeda globally comes along with success in Iraq. For all its setbacks and frustrations, the Iraq war drew jihadists into a battle they thought they could win, because it would be fought on their home turf - but which they're now losing disastrously.

2) The US decision to "stay the course" in the Iraq war, which was also widely mocked and criticized, served to thoroughly demoralize the jihadist movement.

From its start in spring 2003, the Iraqi insurgency has been entirely built on the premise that it could use suicide and roadside bombings, sectarian slaughter and the torture and murder of hostages to force America out of the Middle East.

If Democrats had won the White House in 2004, the jihadists might have succeeded.

Instead, America doggedly refused to give in to terror, despite 4,000 combat deaths and massive antiwar sentiment, and unwaveringly supported an Iraqi government that was at times feeble and confused - and proceeded to break the jihadist movement's back.

In that interview, the CIA's Hayden also that al Qaeda is no longer able to use the Iraq war as a way to draw in new recruits. The reason is clear: If you go to Iraq to fight the American infidel you will die, and die for nothing.

3) Finally, the Bush administration's success in Iraq, and growing success in the War on Terror, offers a powerful object lesson in how to deal with the continuing threat from Iran.

Iran remains the most lethal state sponsor of terrorism, fomenting proxy wars in Lebanon and Gaza, and in Iraq itself. Its nuclear-weapons program proceeds despite minor sanctions and endless international efforts at engagement.

Now the Bush administration has shown the way for the next president. Instead of trying to "understand" the enemy, disrupt and defeat his plans. Instead of listening to domestic critics, act in the nation's best interests. Instead of relying on multilateral support to decide what to do, go it alone if necessary.

Instead of worrying about an exit strategy, realize that there's no substitute for winning.

Caspian, when abusing comments from a very few Generals which are years old and especially don't apply given the years of events after their comments were made, will always call you out as a liar given you immorally continue to misrepresent the present. Besides, 99% of the Generals in existence never harbored such opinions and always supported President Bush where you and the rest of the pacifistic left advocated withdrawal which even none of your featured Generals campaigned for, not even in the darkest days of the insurgency. Your total presentation on the subject has been a manufacture of your world only.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Truth is Bush had 7 years in Afghanistan and lost!"


The Iraq war is considered practically won and a major Bush success by everyone except Caspian who is too much of a child to ever admit he was as wrrrrrrrrong! A little bit of memory should have reminded you that there were no more Al Qaeda left to kill in Afghanistan by the time the Iraq war started. They were all either dead or fled to Pakistan, besides the balance of the Coalition was still left in Afghanistan. You're probably the last person on earth who's opinion on the subject has any credibility whatsoever. Nader/Paul/Pelosi pacifists have only one goal in life and it is certainly not to win wars, but is to punish those who dare to defend our country.




To The Village Idiot:


The Iraq War was handed to Obama on a golden platter as a resounding success......It's only Obama's to lose now should he not support the Iraqi Government as President Bush would have supported them. During the election, not that long ago the Democrats insisted that they would make Afghanistan, "the good war" their crowning achievement (election rhetoric). Now you and them have the audacity to suggest that its too hard and not worth the fight. Very very predictable. Just let John McCain step in for Obama on winning in Afghanistan and relief will be just an election away. Just more proof that the left can't ever fight their way out of a wet paper bag and let us just all remember that Progressives and the Democratic left could never defend America or fight its wars. America can ill afford any more leftists in our elected government.

For those who have an opinion.wether right or wrong:

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965"

Stop being a useful idiot and apologist for the wealthiest corporate Republican Rightwing lunatics.

Clinton handed Dumbya Bush the best economy in all of American history and Bush and his corporate Republicans destroyed the USA.

Here's a clue for you Bill: Obama cannot not leave Iraq because it is still a mess.

=================================
BUSH CORPORATE REPUBLICANS DESTROYED AMERICA WITH THE HELP OF SOME BLUE DOG CORPORATE DEMOCRATS.

Linda Bilmes: “The $10 Trillion Hangover: Paying the Price for Eight Years of Bush” / December 22, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/9nlmlx
In a new article in Harper’s Magazine, Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz estimate that the cost of undoing the Bush administration’s economic choices, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the collapse of the financial system, soaring debt, and new commitments to interest payments and Medicare, all add up to over $10 trillion.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/linda_bilmes_the_10_trillion_hangover

US debt clock runs out of digits
9 October 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/49bkur
The US government's debts have ballooned so badly the National Debt Clock in New York has run out of digits to record the spiralling figure.
The digital counter marks the national debt level, but when that passed the $10 trillion point last month, the sign could not display the full amount.
The board was erected to highlight the $2.7 trillion level of debt in 1989.
The clock's owners say two more zeros will be added, allowing the clock to record a quadrillion dollars of debt.
Douglas Durst, son of the late Seymour Durst - the clock's inventor - hopes to replace the Manhattan clock with its lengthier replacement early next year.
For the time being, the Times Square counter's electronic dollar sign has been replaced with the extra digit required.
For its part, the digital dollar symbol has been supplanted by a cheaper version - perhaps a sign of the times for the American economy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7660409.stm

EXCLUSIVE–The Three Trillion Dollar War: Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Economist Linda Bilmes on the True Cost of the US Invasion and Occupation of Iraq / February 29, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/2on4jv
One week after President Bush rejected charges the war in Iraq has hurt the US economy, a new book puts a conservative estimate of the war’s cost at $3 trillion so far. In their first national broadcast interview upon their book’s publication, Nobel laureate and former chief World Bank economist, Joseph Stiglitz, and co-author Linda Bilmes of Harvard University say the Bush administration has repeatedly low-balled the cost of the war—and even kept a second set of records hidden from the American public
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/exclusive_the_three_trillion_dollar_war

BUSH DESTROYED USA ECONOMY
Greenspan Faults Bush Over Spending
Sep 15, 2007 / http://tinyurl.com/2ah9mn
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, in his upcoming book, bashes President Bush for not responsibly handling the nation's spending and racking up big budget deficits.
A self-described "libertarian Republican," Greenspan takes his own party to task for forsaking conservative principles that favor small government.
"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan wrote.
Bush took office in 2001, the last time the government produced a budget surplus. Every year after that, the government under Bush has been in the red. In 2004, the deficit swelled to a record $413 billion.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-15-560692716_x.htm

"Here's a clue for you Bill: Obama cannot not leave Iraq because it is still a mess."


Certainly Obama shouldn't leave Iraq yet, although the Iraq of what seems to be your favorite time period, pre-surge "mess" 2006 bears abosolutely no resemblance to the Iraq of today thanks to the US military and George Bush, Commander in Chief. What would the shape of Iraq have been had the

"Here's a clue for you Bill: Obama cannot not leave Iraq because it is still a mess."


Certainly Obama shouldn't leave Iraq yet, although the Iraq of what seems to be your favorite time period, pre-surge "mess" 2006 bears abosolutely no resemblance to the Iraq of today thanks to the US military and George Bush, Commander in Chief. What would the shape of Iraq have been had the left had their way and we abandoned Iraq????? Let that be a lesson to anyone who advocates that we should now abandon our commitment to Afghanistan. Unbelievable!

Bernard Kerik:

New Mindset Needed To Defeat Terror

September 25, 2009


On Sept. 20, 2001, President George W. Bush addressed a joint session of Congress following the attacks on America on 9/11. I sat two rows behind first lady Laura Bush as the president spoke of “a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom.”


He spoke of a new and unconventional enemy and said, “They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.”


He said, “These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.”


Well, for the past two weeks, we have learned of a carefully organized and massive plot to bomb a number of targets across the United States by a 24-year-old, Afghan-born Al-Qaida operative named Najibullah Zazi, precisely the enemy Bush spoke of in 2001.


Throughout the course of this investigation by the FBI and New York City Police Department, we have heard that Zazi had several pages of hand-written notes of bomb-making instructions inside a computer that he kept in his possession. He allegedly wrote those notes last year when attended an al-Qaida training camp in Pakistan.


"You're talking about subway stations, public places where potentially thousands of people could be killed," said former FBI agent Brad Garrett. "And in addition to that, when you add multiple locations, you're talking about potentially a horrendous number of people dying.”


Since Zazi’s arrest, federal agents have tracked down a number of beauty supply stores in Colorado where Zazi and accomplices purchased unusually large quantities of hydrogen peroxide and acetone, which would be used to create improvised explosive devices and weapons of mass destruction.


Attorney General Eric Holder said in a prepared statement that, “We believe an imminent threat arising from this case has been disrupted,” and added, “we are investigating a wide range of leads.”


Based on reports, it appears that Zazi was the ringleader of this al-Qaida cell and had a number of co-conspirators in Colorado and New York, and that the principal targets were probably in New York.


That being said, perhaps it’s time to look at things a little differently when it comes to keeping our country safe and free from the threats of this new and unconventional enemy.


Immigration, criminal profiling, and the Patriot Act are just for starters.


Our immigration laws have loopholes the size of Texas. Putting aside our inability to prevent intruders from illegally crossing our borders, many of our immigration policies are no better.


For example, a military commander from Saudi Arabia comes to the United States to attend a military course and brings his wife, who is eight months pregnant. Their baby is born a U.S. citizen, the family travels back to Saudi Arabia, and the child can return anytime during their lifetime with no restrictions. If by chance that child is raised or infested with the radical Islamic beliefs of Osama Bin Laden and his followers, there is nothing we can do about it. That child has the same rights and any other U.S. citizen.


Another example, based on a true story, is that a naturalized Pakistani father living in Georgia takes his two U.S.-born teenage sons to Karachi, Pakistan, drops them in a madrassa (an Islamic learning center) for four years to be indoctrinated in radical extremists beliefs. The two young men return to the United States with an incredible hatred for our country and there is nothing we can do about it.


Another example: A family from Syria is chosen thru the U.S. immigration lottery to acquire a green card. They come to the United States and acquire their green card with the understanding that they will live in the U.S. However, as soon as they receive it, they head back to Syria (using their Syrian passport) and return every six months to show up for immigration interviews until they become U.S. citizens. They then live in Syria and keep the U.S. citizenship in a drawer in case they need it.


Since political correctness has scared our legislators to death, they can’t find the courage to say publicly that we as a country must begin profiling to identify the new enemies we face, both here and abroad.


Call it criminal profiling, terrorist profiling, or whatever you wish, but don’t confuse it with racial profiling. Take the sex, age, religion, education, place of worship, travel history, and an assortment of other things that resemble the personal pedigree of Najibullah Zazi, Mohammed Atta (one of the 9/11 ring leaders), and a few of the Islamic extremist bombers in Madrid and London, and throw them into a massive super computer of every public and law enforcement data base in the U.S., and I promise you will identify a number of people we should be watching that we are not.


The civil rights advocates will scream constitutional violations, racial profiling, big brother watching, and on and on. So what! I’d rather find these people before they strike than be conducting investigations after a device was activated somewhere in the New York City mass transit system.


As for the Patriot Act, every time we hear of a plot that involves an extremist group that intends to attack our country from within, I look at how the Patriot Act has helped in the investigation. This one probably takes the cake.


The CIA observed Zazi in Pakistan frequenting a location known to be a hangout for al-Qaida operatives. The CIA relayed that information to the FBI in the United States and a target is born. Roving wiretaps, CIA-FBI communications and coordination, local and state involvement in the federal investigation, and more led to the arrest and uncovering of what could be the most substantial al-Qaida attack plot in the U.S since 9/11.


Since the details continue to filter in, only time will tell how big this plot was, but one thing is for sure: the Patriot Act was a viable tool in allowing the federal agents to accomplish their goals of taking down this cell.


Unlike World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, or even the first Gulf War, this is a new enemy that far surpasses the others in numbers. It’s an unconventional enemy and must be fought by unconventional means. Immigration, the Patriot Act and profiling are just some of the tools that local, state, and federal authorities will need to do their job.


If we are going to beat them, we must think like them, create laws to combat them, and understand that the days of battling a foreign enemy through conventional means are over. Our military must change, our local, state and federal law enforcement must change, and most importantly, our political leadership on both sides of the aisle must change.


In concluding his speech in 2001, Bush said he was “confident of the victories to come.”


For your sake and mine, I just hope he was right.


Bernard Kerik served as New York City’s 40th police commissioner and Iraq’s interim minister of interior following the fall of Saddam Hussein. Today he is the chairman of The Kerik Group LLC. Visit his Web site at www.thekerikgroup.com.

Iraq 2003 Disaster
Iraq 2004 Disaster
Iraq 2005 Disaster
Iraq 2006 Disaster
Iraq 2007 Disaster
Iraq 2008 Surge a little better.
Iraq 2009 Still a horrible mess.

Obama inherited a total disaster from Bush!

=================================

National Debt When Jimmy Carter arrived at the White House
Oct 13, 2008 /
$660 billion./
Added during Carter's four years: $337 billion.
Added during Ronald Reagan's eight years: $1.6 trillion.
Added during George H. W. Bush's four years: $1.6 trillion.
Added during Bill Clinton's eight years: $1.5 trillion.
Added during George W. Bush's seven years, nine months: $4.5 trillion.
Portion of the $9.5 trillion added to the national debt during the past 31 years and seven months that came during Republican presidencies: $7.7 trillion.
Percentage of that $7.7 trillion added during George W. Bush's two terms: 58%.

Could somebody explain again what "fiscal conservative" means

==============================

HEADLINES THAT YOU NEVER READ IN THE REPUBLICAN/FOREIGN-OWNED U.S. MEDIA: / http://tinyurl.com/5mq65x

President Ronald Reagan is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $100 Billion in one year!

President Ronald Reagan is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $200 Billion in one year!

President George H.W. Bush is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $300 Billion in one year!

President George H.W. Bush is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $400 Billion in one year!

President George W. Bush is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $500 Billion in one year!

President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion AGAIN! Almost hits $600 Billion!

President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a THIRD time!

President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a FOURTH time!

President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a FIFTH time!

"Our National Debt is up Three Trillion Dollars under George W. Bush!" / http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Caspian, Iraq was only one prediction you were miserably wrong about......how about Iran? You were so fearful that President Bush was making so much about Iran's nuclear installations as an excuse for either the USA or Israel to launch an attack.
I believe your Tiny World sources, where you get your make believe news said it would be ten years before Iran could actually fission enough plutonium and then make a nuclear bomb. Well, wrong again! If you don't want to believe FOX News, try CBS, NBC or ABC, who are well left of center to satisfy you anyway. Maybe even tuning into what the current president is retching about these days. At this point I bet the president and Democratic Congress wished they hadn't made such a stink when President Bush offered to take care of Ahmadinejad his way.....Problem would have been solved before Iran could have retaliated with nukes. Stupid leftists,oh well! The problem with Obama and the Democratic Congress is that no one will believe any amount of saber rattling or tantrums from them based on their past and present performance and rhetoric. Either Nuclear War, by taking action against Iran, or nuclear blackmail by Iran if Obama backs down as he is expected to, is much more real under this administration. Don't you really wish that President Bush was awarded a third term so that both Putin and Ahmadinejad, like Khadafy and others, were put back into their lock box with the key safely put away? Now Obama and Democratic Congress may yet go down in history as the one's who actually invited nuclear war because they were too weak to be affective and believable. After all, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if Obama, Nader or Paul were president instead of JFK, the final outcome would certainly have been tragically America unfriendly.

Listen up Rush Jr. and read my lips,

You sir are a propagandist and unfortunately you believe your own lies and rhetoric.

Bush was the weakest president proven by letting al Qaeda go free for 8 years.

Bush destroyed America and only Fox News viewers and Rightwing radio listeners believe falsely that Bush was a great president.

September 11, 2001 proved beyond any doubt that Republicans cannot keep America safe.

Elect Another Republican?

Are You Insane?

Pakistani A.Q. Khan advanced Nuclear Technology to North Korea, Iran, Libya, and Malaysia when Reagan and Bush were in the White House!

Stop believing the half truths and lies from Rush "From Drugs" Lying Corporatist Millionaire Limbaugh!

SMARTEN UP!

=======================================

The CIA provided a stream of accurate reports to the Reagan / Bush administration that Pakistan’s Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan was making nuclear weapons-grade uranium throughout the 1980’s. Reagan / Bush did absolutely nothing to stop it because Pakistani ISI was helping Usama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and Taliban to oust the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The Russians wanted to control Afghanistan for future oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea Oil and Gas Region.

Now fast forward to October 2001, CIA questioned two senior Pakistani scientists Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood and Chaudry Abdul Majid and they said Pro-Taliban feelings extend beyond the Pakistani Army, the ISI, it is right into Pakistan’s nuclear-weapons laboratories. Dr. A.Q. Khan confessed that he helped with the Pakistani government assistance, to sell nuclear technology to Libya, North Korea, Iran, and Malaysia. These Pakistani nuclear scientists have close ties to radical Islamic terrorists groups.

George “Ignorant Iraqi Oil” Bush did not do anything about Pakistan’s government selling nuclear technology to Libya, North Korea, Iran, and Malaysia. The CIA had 100% proof of this and George “Incompetent” Bush came out publicly with the truth on October 16, 2002, only 5 days after the Congress voted for Military Force against Iraq. Ignorant Bush also sold F-16 aircraft to Pakistan.

======================================

New Players on the Scene:
A.Q. Khan and the Nuclear Black Market
http://tinyurl.com/yeg3nsb
http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2008/July/20080815121848XJyrreP0.1191522.html

"Caspian, Iraq was only one prediction you were miserably wrong about......how about Iran? You were so fearful that President Bush was making so much about Iran's nuclear installations as an excuse for either the USA or Israel to launch an attack."



What does your Tiny World mismatch of dates and alleged events have to do with the above statement? Nothing! Admission of you were wrrrrrrrrong!

Bring Back GWB, the Only True Commander in Chief - NOW!

---------------------------------------

Iran's nuke lie puts heat on O:

G-20 allies bare secret site amid calls for action

September 26, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Obama said yesterday he still favors dialogue with Iran -- even after it was revealed the country has been caught building a second top-secret nuclear plant inside a mountain.

At a press conference in Pittsburgh, where the G-20 summit was taking place, Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy disclosed the existence of the uranium enrichment plant near the holy city of Qom.

The White House has been aware of the heavily protected, clandestine facility, Iran's second outside of Natanz, for a couple of years, US officials said.


The Iranians referenced the Qom plant in a private letter sent Monday to the UN nuclear watchdog agency, apparently in an effort to come clean after becoming aware that Western intelligence agencies were on to them.

With members of Congress and world leaders stiffening their calls for action against Iran, Obama said he remains committed to an Oct. 1 meeting in London between Iran and the United States and other world powers.

"When we find that diplomacy does not work, we will be in a much stronger position to, for example, apply sanctions that have bite," he said.

"That's not the preferred course of action. I would love nothing more than to see Iran choose the responsible path."

"Iran is on notice," he said flatly. "They are going to have to come clean."

The president didn't rule out military action.

"With respect to the military, I've always said that we do not rule out any options when it comes to US security interests, but I will also re-emphasize that my preferred course of action is to resolve this in a diplomatic fashion. It's up to the Iranians to respond."

Throughout the day, leaders at home and abroad called on Obama to take a hard line.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the No. 2 Republican in the House, said Iran is a "real-time security threat to the United States, Israel and our allies around the world."

He said the nuke discovery "leaves little doubt that terrorist nations are not to be trusted or negotiated with diplomatically."

And in a joint statement, Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, voiced support for "whatever it takes" -- a clear reference to military action -- to stop Iran from joining the nuclear-weapon club.

Around the globe, there was a change in tone toward the Iranian regime.

"We will not let this matter rest," Brown said, accusing Iran of "serial deception."

Sarkozy said "everything, everything must be on the table."

Even China and Russia, Iran's allies who have blocked UN sanctions, took a harder line.

The uranium enrichment facility is "a source of serious concern," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said. He called on Tehran to "demonstrate readiness for full-scale cooperation."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in New York for the UN meeting, thumbed his nose at the West and said Obama should not interfere with his country's nuclear ambitions.

"If I were Obama's adviser, I would definitely advise him to refrain making this statement because it is definitely a mistake," he told Time magazine.

Appease-y does it for weak Prez on road to a Mideast apocalypse:

September 26, 2009

DID it surprise a single Post reader that Iran's been hiding a big nu clear weapons development fa cility? It stunned our president when he learned about it months ago. Then he kept it secret from you.

Obama didn't want you to know how much progress Iran had made. It's an embarrassment.

And it raises the pressure on the White House to act -- something this president's squirming to avoid. But the Iranians have now realized we know, so they tipped it themselves.

Obama had no choice but to come clean.

Yesterday, he interrupted the G-20 summit to go public -- before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did. Flanked by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's dead man walking, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, our president offered more uselessly vague rhetoric in response to proof of a major "covert Iranian enrichment facility" and its implications.


HEAT'S ON: The president, at the G-20 summit Thursday, appeared with British and French leaders yesterday to reveal Iran's secret nuke plant.
Obama's statement amounted to, Ooooh, I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down . . . maybe . . . eventually . . . but not really . . . let's talk . . .
Only Sarkozy made a serious attempt to get the Iranian leadership's attention, stressing the consistent failure of negotiations and the need for action. He understands that a decade of talking with Tehran brought zero results.

Obama cringed.

Shouldn't we be ashamed that a French president's leading the fight to protect Israel and the free world?

To be fair, Obama's overwhelmed.

Fatally confident of his powers of persuasion, he's bewildered that he hasn't been able to convince the Iranians (or the Palestinians, Russians, Venezuelans, Chinese, etc.) to do what he wants them to do.

So Washington delays. While Iran races toward a nuclear arsenal.

Not only has Iran's known program moved ahead despite our cajoling, now comes the news that far more dangerous facilities have been missed for years by our intelligence services (to their credit, though, they ultimately found the Qom installation). Who knows how many more we haven't found?

Additionally, an Iranian exile group opposed to the theocrat thugs in Tehran claimed this week that Ahmadinejad's government operates two secret plants that fabricate detonators for nuclear weapons.

One of those sites is in an east Tehran suburb, another in that enormous city's exurbs. The major enrichment site that embarrassed our president sits near Qom, Iran's holiest city.

Ahmadinejad's boys know what they're doing. They've dispersed their nuclear program across urban areas and deep underground. The network is not only hard to hit -- it's impossible to strike effectively without inflicting thousands of civilian casualties.

These new sites raise the stakes higher still: Attack the plant near Qom and we'll be seen by Shia Muslims as violating a holy city. Strike those Tehran detonator factories and you get severe collateral damage -- plus the probable spread of radioactive material, an instant "dirty bomb."

Yet, after all this, there's still resistance in Washington to the conclusions that Iran's determined to develop nuclear weapons and then use them. What amount of evidence will it take?

Iran's faith-crazed president appears before the UN, denying the Holocaust and damning Israel. He has openly and repeatedly professed an apocalyptic religious vision that requires chaos on earth to bring about the return of the "hidden imam," the Shia version of a messiah. He never misses an opportunity to call for Israel's total destruction.

And Washington insists he's joking. (Yeah, they're belly-laughing in Tel Aviv right now.)

Appeasers also blather that "other states have had nukes for years," but haven't used them. And mutually assured destruction (MAD) actually did keep the peace between the superpowers for six decades (another lesson our president doesn't get).

The arguments don't hold up. Even the North Koreans, the other entry in the rogue-state nuclear-arms race, don't want to die. They want earthly power, not a sacred apocalypse.

The new and immeasurably dangerous factor in play is religious fanaticism. The doomsday-lust avowed by Ahmadinejad and his supporters shatters every deterrence equation.

So now what? Obama will try more talks. We may see half-hearted sanctions -- which will be violated right and left. Russia, which profits hugely from dirty trade with Iran, can slip goods across the Caspian Sea or through Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.

And maritime sanctions are meaningless, unless our president is willing to order our Navy to fire on Chinese-flagged or Venezuelan-flagged merchant vessels.

Think that's going to happen?

How will it end? With desperate Israeli attacks that do only part of the job, followed by Iranian counterstrikes on Persian Gulf oil facilities, the closure of the Straits of Hormuz and oil above $400 a barrel.

Only the United States can stop Iran's nuclear program before it's too late. And this president won't.

Bill by your rightwing logic Obama is a much stronger president than Bush was because Obama kept the US safer for longer!

January 20, 2009 - September 26, 2009


January 20, 2001 - September 11, 2001

15 days and counting!

Cas:
TOU-CHE!

robert in reality people like our friend Bill do not have a party who represents them!

PROOF: LOL

Obviously he does not have a party who represents his views.

NOT ONE Republican voted against the legislation that states Obama was born in Hawaii.

Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are liars and propagandist.

Sincerely,
Josef Goebbels

Congress: Yes, Obama Was Born in Hawaii ( 378 - 0 )
July 28, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/lhngae
Yesterday, an innocuous-sounding resolution in honor of the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian statehood came up for vote on the House floor.

The resolution from Hawaii Democrat Neil Abercrombie, which Greg Sargent first reported, included this line: "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii…"

Why is that notable? Because it's just the sort of claim that angers the birthers – the movement of folks who believe, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that President Obama was not really born in Hawaii, and is thus not a U.S. citizen.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/28/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5193422.shtml

Obama feeds allies to bear:

September 18, 2009

STILL determined to "push the reset button with Russia," President Obama hit the delete key on our allies in Eastern Europe.

Obama's decision to abandon missile defense as we know it, cutting the throats of Poland and the Czech Republic, handed Moscow's hard-liners their biggest win since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russian strongman Vladimir Putin insisted all along that we'd never be permitted to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system in the former Soviet empire. He was right.

And Obama got nothing in return. No Russian commitments on Iran's nuclear program. No sovereignty guarantees for Georgia. No restrictions on arms sales to Venezuela. Not even a bearhug.

Yesterday, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained the rationale for ending our plan to deploy a high-tech radar system and anti-missile interceptors to Eastern Europe, every military argument he advanced was absolutely correct. But, in strategic terms, the decision's a disaster.
The move to kill this program was a White House attempt to toss a bone to the extreme left, which has always hated missile defense. (Why defend ourselves, when we're the enemy?) For that, Obama betrayed the trust of allies who'd done all they could to please us.

The Poles spent enormous political capital to convince their citizens to risk this deployment. They've backed us consistently in NATO and the UN. They sent combat troops to support us in Iraq.

The Czechs also fought our political battles for us, supporting our foreign wars and siding with us in international forums -- angering West European powers.

Now add Poland and the Czech Republic to the list of allies, such as Israel and Honduras, that we've thrown to the wolves. Obama's foreign policy embodies a line from "Animal House": "You [screwed] up -- you trusted us!"

But the worst thing is how this decision's read in Moscow. Putin, Russia's new czar, sees this as a triumph of his will over Obama's weak, retreating US. And he's right.

Thus it came to pass that, 70 years to the day after the Red Army invaded Poland, Warsaw's residents heard the news of this US betrayal and the implicit message that, yes, Eastern Europe still belongs in Moscow's sphere of influence.

If you're a citizen of Ukraine, Georgia or even the NATO-member Baltic states, you must be shuddering. You thought NATO and the US were serious about your right to live in freedom?

Better dig that Latvian-Russian dictionary out of the attic.

The last thing we needed to do was to further encourage Putin to believe he's all-knowing and invincible. But that's just what we've done.

To be fair, the entire debacle has been a bipartisan mess.

I, for one, never believed this was the right system at the right place and time. The technology was immature, and Iran's a regional, not an intercontinental, problem. But conservatives who believe that any hyperexpensive weapon system deserves automatic support shoved it down our throats and those of our allies. (It's not just the left that damages our defense.)

Once the Bush administration committed to the deployment, I grudgingly supported it: We couldn't hang the East Europeans out to dry after strong-arming them for commitments.

Now the Obama administration's made the mess immeasurably worse. It's a lose-lose situation for us -- and for our allies.

Moscow believes we just signed over a new lease on Eastern Europe. And we didn't even get a tin of caviar. Will the Obama-Putin Act go down in history as the post-modern Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?.

Looks like President Bush was 100% correct on Iran from the get go.
---------------------------------------

No more 'Kumbaya'
Iran talks now look pointless:

September 26, 2009

After a dreamy week in which President Obama presided over an endless chain of "Kumbaya" moments at the United Nations, yesterday was wakeup time on Iran.

Talking in Pittsburgh, where he was flanked by his French and British counterparts (but not the Chinese or the Russians), Obama demanded that Tehran admit international inspectors into a nuclear site that until yesterday very few people outside of Iran knew about.

Earlier this week, Iran disclosed to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to enrich uranium at the site, near the holy city of Qom. The disclosure, buried in Iran's report to the IAEA, was a clear effort at preemption: Iran had realized that the Obama administration planned to come out with the information soon........... The best bet for America at this stage may be to work with NATO and Gulf allies to blockade gasoline shipments to Iran, which lacks refining capacity. But that could lead to hot clashes.

Is Obama ready to take such a tough line? Or will he avoid his leadership responsibilities and leave Iran for the Israelis to deal with?

"Bill by your rightwing logic Obama is a much stronger president than Bush was because Obama kept the US safer for longer!

January 20, 2009 - September 26, 2009


January 20, 2001 - September 11, 2001

15 days and counting!"



The Above Is An All Time Idiotic Statement!!!


For eight years before President Bush the Bill Clinton Administration worked at dismantling the CIA, FBI, Surveillance and security, the US navy, the US Army, the US Air Force, cutting their funding to chicken feed which left us extremely vulnerable. Also leading to President Bush's term the Bill Clinton Administration coward at any type of retribution against Ben Laden and Al Qaeda who was responsible for attack upon attack to US interests around the globe which invigorated the enemy to the point they would dare such a sneak attack as 9/11.

Obama on the other hand was lucky enough to take office after eight years of the George Bush Administration rebuilding the CIA, FBI, Surveillance and security, the US navy, the US Army, the US Air Force, hunting down terrorists like dogs, that they are, where they live and breathe. This alone kept America attack free and Obama is still enjoying the fruits of the efforts from George Bush....but not for long as Obama is in the process of reversing much of the safeguards Bush put into place. The world is watching and waiting and so is Al Qaeda. Although being pushed from the pacifistic left, Obama is not stupid and realizes that President Bush's safeguards worked 100% affective.

I will give Bush some credit "ONLY" if al Qaeda does not attack the United States again in Obama's first term.

Fighting Iraqis had ZERO to do with September 11, 2001 and al Qaeda.

Bush was totally derelict by invading Iraq which was no threat.

Clinton wanted to protect America and the Republicans in charge of Congress stopped him! Links prove it!

Clinton caught all the perpetrators who attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 and Bush dropped the ball on September 11, 2001.

------------------------

Clinton PDD 63
http://tinyurl.com/cvuom

For Immediate Release May 22, 1998 FACT SHEET PROTECTING AMERICA'S
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES: PDD 63
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd-63.htm

Clinton PDD 62
http://tinyurl.com/bze57

COMBATING TERRORISM: PRESIDENTIAL DECISION DIRECTIVE 62
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ciao/62factsheet.htm

TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT
http://tinyurl.com/2lj3t8

Congressional Record: April 17, 1996 (Senate) - Pages S3454-S3478 DOCID:cr17ap96-153

Terrorism prevention Act--Conference Report

Orrin Hatch: Mr. President, again, in the real world, in the case of the Unabomber or a terrorist where there is a real threat or an immediate concern, you do not need this provision to get an emergency wiretap. All the Senator's motion does is expand the number of crimes that would trigger the wiretap statute. This amendment was offered during the Senate debate. It was defeated. It was not a part of the Senate bill. It was not a part of the House bill. It is not a part of our conference report, and rightly so. I oppose this provision that could expand emergency wiretap authority to permit the Government to begin a wiretap prior to obtaining court approval in a greater range of cases than the law presently allows. I personally find this proposal troubling. I am concerned that this provision, if enacted, would unnecessarily broaden emergency wiretap authority. Under current law, such authority exists when life is in danger, when the national security is threatened, or when an organized crime conspiracy is involved. In the real world, we do not need this amendment to get emergency wiretap authority, and that is a fact.
Let me also say that this authority is constrained by a requirement that surveillance be approved by the Court within 48 hours, but that authority already exists in those areas I have addressed.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1996_record&docid=cr17ap96-153

============================

COMPREHENSIVE ANTITERRORISM ACT OF 1995
http://tinyurl.com/ys56o4

Congressional Record: April 18, 1996 (House) - Pages H3605-H3618 Government Printing Office's Online Records: DOCID:cr18ap96-43

Conference Report on s. 735, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
Dan Burton (R-Ind): If the Government of the United States can through, quote-unquote, good faith tap our phones and intrude into our lives, they violate our constitutional liberties, and that is something that we should not tolerate, and that is in section 305 and section 307. The FBI can gain access to individual phone billing records without a subpoena or a court order. Once again I believe that infringes upon our constitutional rights and liberties, and while we are trying to deal with terrorism, and we should, we should not violate our constitutional rights and liberties, and I believe this bill in its present form does. And that is why I think the Barr amendment is absolutely essential if we are going to pass something that will really deal with terrorism crime, but protect the liberties that we fought so hard for in the Revolutionary War.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1996_record&docid=cr13mr96-94

Michael Moore's Nightline Interview With Terry Moran
http://tinyurl.com/ye5ktj8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDrFZktpv9k

Michael Moore on Good Morning America
http://tinyurl.com/ydyhw7p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY1pcoBWp3Q

Michael Moore: Capitalism has proven it's failed
http://tinyurl.com/yau7g8o
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/24/lkl.michael.moore/?imw=Y#cnnSTCVideo

RUN LIKE HELL! GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!

General McCrystal is nuts, and Obama wants time to think about it! Patton--"The poor sons o' bitches."(Can you hear Patton?) And, McArthur are rolling in their graves--"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to WIN IT!"

How can you conduct a war when the American soldier has to babysit? and do combya to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghanistanies, the ones the US soldiers are dying to liberate, NOT THERE TO PROTECT THE AFGHANISTANI PEOPLE? Civilians will do what they did in World War II--take sides with the stronger side.

The Taliban and Al Queda use the civilians as human shields to hide behind them, and THEN, THE AMERICAN SOLDIERS ARE NOT GOING AFTER THE ENEMY!

American soldiers are dying for rediculous reasons in the Afghanistan war, and instead of American soldiers, Bill Graham and the Jehovah Witnesses should be conscripted to fight this war.

General McCrystal says protecting the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan people is more important than killing the enemy with direct action.

The other day--Obama on Friday said that he DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IRAN'S NUCLEAR PLANT OR MISSLES. I DON'T BELIEVE IT!

THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF SHOULD JUMP ALL OVER OBAMA AND CALL OBAMA A LIAR, TOO. OBAMA IS TOO BIG FOR THE UNITED STATES AND NOW LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. OBAMA IS DEPENDENT ON OTHERS TOO EVEN IF HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and now Obama is calling the Joint Chiefs of Staff and everybody under them LIARS! (Satellite photography)

To The Village Idiot:


The Iraq War was handed to Obama on a golden platter as a resounding success. YOU ARE 100% CERTIFIABLY CRAZY! It's only Obama's to lose... GEE! its funny that nobody else wonders why Bush quit trying to win the wars he declared Mission Accomplished then rapidly turned into WHAT? ME WORRY? ...I 'll just hand over all of my failures to the next guy. heh heh.
The closet Bush ever got to any "hands on success" in the political or military arenas was when he tried to engage his Blue Eyed hero into the buffoonery Hey Putin, Pull my finger.

PS: What the hell in in that kool Aid, IV drip or psychotropics that you are ingesting. Does it have a market name? Or is it classified

For eight years before President Bush the Bill Clinton Administration worked at dismantling the CIA, FBI, Surveillance and security, the US navy, the US Army, the US Air Force, cutting their funding to chicken feed which left us extremely vulnerable. Also leading to President Bush's term the Bill Clinton Administration coward at any type of retribution against Ben Laden and Al Qaeda who was responsible for attack upon attack to US interests around the globe which invigorated the enemy to the point they would dare such a sneak attack as 9/11.

I can attest to that. During the final year of Clinton presidency, I signed up to join the army, despite having scored in the top 97% of ASVAB and have sworn-in my allegiance to protect this country from all threats foreign and domestic, I was finally rejected for inconsequential calluses that was on my hand from playing tennis. Having checked out the army facilities earlier, their computer system was at least a decade old running crappy dos-like software... the facilities were definitely ill funded at that time. Also, being down there in Harrisburg, I've saw that our forces were made up of mostly minorities, probably because they had nowhere to go ... so the choices of personnel was definitely not the best.

Unlike most of you who's never served, I have at least tried. I just hate reading so many idiotic comments from people who don't value those who has sacrificed so much for the freedoms that you enjoy today. Or how certain media station twists the truth and cover-up what they don't want you to see.

The Afghan answer
How US should move

September 28, 2009

MULLAH Muhammad Omar must be wondering what is going on in Washing ton.

The reclusive Taliban leader, presumed to be hiding near the Pakistani city of Quetta, this month issued an end-of-Ramadan message in which he all but admitted that things aren't going well for his movement and its terrorist allies.

For the first time in eight years, he also indicated his readiness to consider negotiations as a means of ending the insurgency.

A careful reading of Omar's message shows three things.

* He and his close advisers are now convinced that they can't win on the battlefield.


The winner -- but: President Karzai needs to yield some power.
* A growing number of Taliban allies, especially among the Pushtun tribes, are wary of endless war and anxious to reach some accommodation with whoever controls Kabul.
* The mullah is prepared to abandon some of his most retrograde positions, especially with regard to the status of women, in the hope of securing a share of power in Kabul.

Omar isn't alone in concluding that NATO forces can't be driven out of Afghanistan through terror and insurgency.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the ultraradical Hizb Islami (Islamic Party) is also trying to wave an olive branch. In an interview faxed to regional and international media this month, Hekmatyar echoes Mullah Omar's indirect plea for negotiations and power sharing.

As the second-largest force in the insurgency after the Taliban, Hekmatyar's group has played a crucial role in spreading the fight to northern Afghanistan -- notably Kunduz, where Omar never managed to win a foothold.

The third major insurgent group is led by the Haqqani brothers, who have been responsible for much of the mischief done in the southeastern provinces. They, too, appear to have concluded that their side can't win this war. Last month, the Haqqanis dispatched their womenfolk and children to Abu Dhabi, where they have extensive business interests -- a sign that they're preparing for an eventual retreat. They've also revived contacts with Saudi Arabia in the hope of joining Riyadh's efforts to promote dialogue between President Hamid Karzai's administration and the insurgents.

The three insurgent groups control only 11 of the nation's 362 districts, accounting for less than 1 percent of the country's population. Most of their chief bases are in Pakistan or, in Hekmatyar's case, Iran.

Yet Washington is all abuzz with the "f" word -- for what many see as looming failure in Afghanistan.

Three years ago, the "defeat industry" tried but failed to manufacture an historic defeat in Iraq. Now it's trying again in Afghanistan.