How Long?

[burmafrd]

Before some moronic libs blame Bush for Bhutto's assasination?

[Danny White]

I don't know.

But I was thinking about how this impacts the Presidential campaign.

I think it helps McCain and Rudy for the Republicans and Hillary for the Democrats.

I think it hurts anyone who has scant foreign policy experience. Like Huckabee or Romney.

Not sure how it impacts Paul. His followers are tough to predict.

[burmafrd]

Too early to tell. Depends on what happens over there. Musharaffe still has control at this time.

[ConcordCowboy]

Is it going to take before you get your head out of Bush's rectum?

No he didn't do this...but his list of wrong doings is long but distinguished.

[burmafrd]

How long are you going to be just another Lib with his head burried up his own rectum?

[ConcordCowboy]

How long are you going to be just another Lib with his head burried up his own rectum?

Someone who STILL to this day supports and defends Bush after all we know and you're coming in here and calling people stupid or moronic.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mfl/lowres/mfln130l.jpg

You need to look in the mirror...you'll see those things.

[StevenOtero]

Is it going to take before you get your head out of Bush's rectum?

No he didn't do this...but his list of wrong doings is long but distinguished.Thank you.

[StevenOtero]

Before some moronic libs blame Bush for Bhutto's assasination?LOL, I'm no lib but I'm sure not all libs are morons.

[StevenOtero]

I don't know.

But I was thinking about how this impacts the Presidential campaign.

I think it helps McCain and Rudy for the Republicans and Hillary for the Democrats.

I think it hurts anyone who has scant foreign policy experience. Like Huckabee or Romney.

Not sure how it impacts Paul. His followers are tough to predict.What do you mean? 99.9% of his followers are pro-civil liberties, that isn't very tough to predict. We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and over-run by bureaucrats. The founding fathers would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with. If you look at every single problem were facing today. It is because of the lack of respect for the rule of law in the Constitution. Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Ron Paul:
Never voted to raise taxes
Never voted for an unbalanced budget
Never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership
Never taken a government paid junket
Never voted to increase the power of the executive branch

Voted against the Patriot Act
Voted against regulating the internet
Voted against the Iraq War

Does not participate in the lucrative Congressional Pension Program
Returns a portion of his annual Congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year

[StevenOtero]

There is absolutely no reason to ever give up any personal liberty to be safe.

[ConcordCowboy]

LOL, I'm no lib but I'm sure not all libs are morons.

:laugh2:

Anyone that knows me KNOWS that I'm not a Liberal or a Conservative...I have Liberal views for somethings and I have Conservative views for others.

But with Burm...if you don't agree with him...you're a Stupid/Moronic/Terrorist loving Liberal.:rolleyes:

[StevenOtero]

:laugh2:

Anyone that knows me KNOWS that I'm not a Liberal or a Conservative...I have Liberal views for somethings and I have Conservative views for others.

But with Burm...if you don't agree with him...you're a Stupid/Moronic/Terrorist loving Liberal.:rolleyes::lmao:

[Rackat]

Anyone that knows me KNOWS that I'm not a Liberal or a Conservative...I have Liberal views for somethings and I have Conservative views for others.

But with Burm...if you don't agree with him...you're a Stupid/Moronic/Terrorist loving Liberal.:rolleyes:
That's like me. I have liberal views on some things, and conservative on others. I think it is called being well rounded. The only people that are morons/idiots/whatever, are those that subscribe to an extreme ideology without regard for opposing views or the consequences of their inability to see the danger of the extreme end to their ideology.

[StevenOtero]

That's like me. I have liberal views on some things, and conservative on others. I think it is called being well rounded. The only people that are morons/idiots/whatever, are those that subscribe to an extreme ideology without regard for opposing views or the consequences of their inability to see the danger of the extreme end to their ideology.:hammer:

[StevenOtero]

December 27, 2007 Who Killed Bhutto? (updated)

Rick Moran
Conventional wisdom would point the finger at Islamic extremists in Pakistan as the ones who pulled off the successful assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. They made no secret of the fact that killing Bhutto was their number one priority.

They despised her relative secularism and the fact that she was a woman doing man's work. But most of all, they needed to kill her in order to bring unrest to Pakistan, thus setting the stage for what they hope could turn into a bloody civil war and the victory of extremists.

In this scenario, al-Qaeda and those who sympathize with them both in and out of government could be responsible for her death. The intelligence service, ISI, has many Islamist sympathizers in its ranks and getting through the security that surrounded Bhutto could have been facilitated by the professionals in Pakistani intelligence. As details of the attack are revealed, that aspect of the puzzle may come together.

Who else might have carried out such an attack? The Pakistani people are apparently blaming President Musharraf, thinking he offed her in order to get rid of a rival for power. Or, their reasoning goes, he had Bhutto killed in order to re-establish some kind of one man rule.

The problem with blaming Musharraf is that the last thing the Pakistani president wants at this point is violence in the streets. Dawn (http://www.dawn.com/2007/12/27/benazirbhutto.htm) is reporting that tear gas is already being used against protestors in Peshwar and the possibility of millions of Pakistanis rioting in the major cities is Musharraf's main nightmare at the moment. This is not to say, as I mention above, that elements of the government weren't in on the plot. But Musharraf would have to have a death wish to kill Bhutto.

Is it possible that this was a lone nut? Possible but not very likely. Security surrounding Bhutto was several layers deep and it would seem extremely unlikely that someone could wander through the security net and blow himself up. This is why the finger keeps coming back to a detailed plot with perhaps complicity among Bhutto's bodyguards. The reason for that speculation is that early reports indicate that shots were fired inside the vehicle immediately before the suicide bomber detonated himself. It could be that the bomber was able to push his way into the car following Bhutto who witnesses say was shot as she was getting into the car.

The next few days will tell the tale for Pakistan and its efforts to bring democracy to the country. Elections, scheduled for a little more than two weeks from today, will feature a new leader of Bhutto's Pakistani People's Party. Can he or she fill Bhutto's shoes?

If not, Pakistan is in for some very dangerous times.

Update: Thomas Lifson adds:

Is there a connection between the killing of Bhutto and Musharraff's campaign in the Swat Valley? Quite possibly.

From December the 8th ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/08/2113543.htm) (Australia - not related to American ABC News), the Pakistani Army is claiming the Swat Valley is clear of Islamist militants. Musharraff's forces have killed 290 rebels and arrested another 143, but pro-Taliban cleric Maulana Fazlullah is still on the run with about 200 to 400 "hardcore fighters, including some foreigners."

It's not unreasonable to assume that remnants of Fazlullah's forces are behind the attack on Bhutto given that they were kicked out of the Swat Valley almost three weeks ago and are desperate to continue their campaign of de-stabilization. Also, Maj Gen Janjua of the Pakistan Army says it will take about four months to completely restore order in the Swat Valley. In the meantime, pro-Taliban forces could very well have dispersed and then regrouped to conduct the attack.

Update from Marc Sheppard:

Adnkronos International (http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1710322437) is reporting its conversation with Al-Qaeda’s Afghanistan commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid in which he claimed the terror-network’s responsibility for Bhutto’s murder, stating:

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen.”
The article, which attributes no exact time to the conversation, continues:

“It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October.

Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto.”
While certainly no surprise, once verified this should serve as stark reminder of just how radical Islam exercises its veto power.

[Cajuncowboy]

I don't think anyone will be THAT big of a moron to say Bush had anything to do with this. They would be exposed as the fools they are, even if they think it inside.

What I do expect however is that once the smoke clears, they will point a finger at Bush saying how he is aligned with Mushariff who could be considered one of the guys responsible. Thus making a guilt by association assertion. While that also is moronic, they will try to make the point.

[Cajuncowboy]

Update from Marc Sheppard:

Adnkronos International (http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1710322437) is reporting its conversation with Al-Qaeda’s Afghanistan commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid in which he claimed the terror-network’s responsibility for Bhutto’s murder, stating:

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen.”
The article, which attributes no exact time to the conversation, continues:

“It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October.

Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto.”
While certainly no surprise, once verified this should serve as stark reminder of just how radical Islam exercises its veto power.

Steven, if what you just posted is true, and I don't doubt it because I have nothing to refute it, then some folks who have been taking the terrorist thing lightly need to rethink their position, because this shows that they are focused on US wherever they think we are. If they viewed Bhutto an American asset then that should tell you how bad they want to kill us.

[StevenOtero]

I don't think anyone will be THAT big of a moron to say Bush had anything to do with this. They would be exposed as the fools they are, even if they think it inside.

What I do expect however is that once the smoke clears, they will point a finger at Bush saying how he is aligned with Mushariff who could be considered one of the guys responsible. Thus making a guilt by association assertion. While that also is moronic, they will try to make the point.What you are saying is true. But as with most things that happen on this Earth. Only the Lord knows the true facts. You have to be well rounded in your political views. Not everything is so black & white. You also can't just get all of your news from once source. By doing so you risk some of that news not being 100% accurate. You have to ask questions, not just eat everything that they feed you.

[ConcordCowboy]

That's like me. I have liberal views on some things, and conservative on others. I think it is called being well rounded. The only people that are morons/idiots/whatever, are those that subscribe to an extreme ideology without regard for opposing views or the consequences of their inability to see the danger of the extreme end to their ideology.

I think so too.

[Cajuncowboy]

What you are saying is true. But as with most things that happen on this Earth. Only the Lord knows the true facts. You have to be well rounded in your political views. Not everything is so black & white. You also can't just get all of your news from once source. By doing so you risk some of that news not being 100% accurate. You have to ask questions, not just eat everything that they feed you.

Yeah but Steven, do you also believe in Bigfoot? How about flying saucers?

The point is that some things are just too ridiculous to believe to give them any credence.

[StevenOtero]

Yeah but Steven, do you also believe in Bigfoot? How about flying saucers?

The point is that some things are just too ridiculous to believe to give them any credence.The point that I'm trying to make is that you can't jump to conclusions on everything. Just because it goes against your beliefs or political views doesn't make it ridiculous or false.

If you want to believe the official story of 9/11 and so on so be it. The news that the corporate media feeds to us is tailored down to be all black and white. Which doesn't matter to about 80% of the United States population. Due to the fact that they don't ask questions anymore. Nobody seems to notice and nobody seems to care.

This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTfcAyYGg may have some language in it. But, it is every important to watch. Please watch it (THE WHOLE THING) and reply.

[Cajuncowboy]

The point that I'm trying to make is that you can't jump to conclusions on everything. Just because it goes against your beliefs or political views doesn't make it ridiculous or false.

If you want to believe the official story of 9/11 and so on so be it. The news that the corporate media feeds to us is tailored down to be all black and white. Which doesn't matter to about 80% of the United States population. Due to the fact that they don't ask questions anymore. Nobody seems to notice and nobody seems to care.

This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTfcAyYGg may have some language in it. But, it is every important to watch. Please watch it (THE WHOLE THING) and reply.

I'm not going to watch anymore videos about some 9/11 conspiracy. If you think that the Mainstream media, who hates Bush more than anything else, would not be trumpeting this from the top of a mountain then you are misled by someone. The only people who believe 9/11 was an inside job are fringe radicals.

[StevenOtero]

I'm not going to watch anymore videos about some 9/11 conspiracy. If you think that the Mainstream media, who hates Bush more than anything else, would not be trumpeting this from the top of a mountain then you are misled by someone. The only people who believe 9/11 was an inside job are fringe radicals.I find that very disrespectful. However, you are entitled to your opinion. No matter how mis-informed you may be. When it comes to politics I am no sheep.

[Cajuncowboy]

I find that very disrespectful. However, you are entitled to your opinion. No matter how mis-informed you may be. When it comes to politics I am no sheep.

Wait, but you don't really put any stock in this theory do you?

[StevenOtero]

Wait, but you don't really put any stock in this theory do you?If were to see the actual facts that I have seen, and research them and find that it is true. I think you might be a little more skeptical of the official story.

[Cajuncowboy]

If were to see the actual facts that I have seen, and research them and find that it is true. I think you might be a little more skeptical of the official story.

What "facts" were you made privy to in High School that the rest of us or the main stream media were not? If you have something then let us know about it. But stories where someone is spouting off are not facts. A fact would be something like...

So & so was photographed flying the plane into the building, (like Atta getting on the plane).

Or a document has surfaced with Bush's signature authorizing the murder of 3000 Americans.

That would hard evidence. Facts. Truths/ Not supposition.

[StevenOtero]

What "facts" were you made privy to in High School that the rest of us or the main stream media were not? If you have something then let us know about it. But stories where someone is spouting off are not facts. A fact would be something like...

So & so was photographed flying the plane into the building, (like Atta getting on the plane).

Or a document has surfaced with Bush's signature authorizing the murder of 3000 Americans.

That would hard evidence. Facts. Truths/ Not supposition.I'll e-mail them to you. Or maybe one of these days we can talk about em' together. But, seriously the truth is out there.

[StevenOtero]

In October e-mail, Bhutto said she would hold Musharraf 'responsible' for her death

In an e-mail sent to a confidant in the US two months ago, assassinated Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto said she would hold the country's current leader Pervez Musharraf "responsible" because his government did not do enough to provide for her security.

"I wld (sic) hold Musharraf responsible," Bhutto wrote to her US spokesman, Mark Siegel, in the October e-mail, which was reported Thursday afternoon by CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "I have been made to feel insecure by his minions, and there is no way what is happening in terms of stopping me from taking private cars or using tinted windows or giving jammers or four police mobiles to cover all sides cld (sic) happen without him."

Blitzer told viewers he received the e-mail soon after it was sent two months ago, but he agreed not to report on it unless Bhutto was assassinated. "It's a story I was asked to report to the world in -- if Bhutto were killed," he said.

The former Pakistani prime minister was shot twice Thursday just before her assassin detonated a suicide bomb that killed at least 20 more of her supporters.

Appearing on The Situation Room on CNN, Siegel said Bhutto was concerned about her security as soon as she returned from a years-long exile in October.

"Benazir was very concerned by the lack of security that she had on her arrival in Karachi on October 18th," Siegel said. "The circumstances around the nation attempt on the night of the 18th, the morning of the 19th, was very, very suspicious. ... There was no investigation of that horrendous killing which killed 179 people. She had asked that Scotland Yard and the FBI be brought in for forensic help for the investigation. The government of General Musharraf absolutely refused."

Since October, Siegel said, Bhutto received "some police protection," but was denied other security precautions such as jammers to prevent improvised explosive devices or four police escorts to protect her from all sides when she appeared in public.

Mahmud al-Durrani, Pakistan's ambassador to the US, also appeared on Blitzer's program. He said it was "naive" to blame Musharraf's government for the attack.

"Musharraf tried his best, but the circumstances under which she moved, that was a problem," al-Durrani said. "When she was moving almost in a sea of humanity, so this -- this -- no system in the world can protect you against that."

DEVELOPING....

[ConcordCowboy]

But, seriously the truth is out there.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i135/housetango/MoviesTV/TheTruthIsOutThere.jpg

I love the X-Files.

[peplaw06]

Didn't take long...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/wherebhuttosdeathleavestheus

By MARK THOMPSON AND BRIAN BENNETT/WASHINGTON 1 hour, 40 minutes ago

The weeks to come will determine just how severe a blow Benazir Bhutto's death is to Pakistan, but debate over Washington's role in the run up to this tragic day will continue well beyond that. Even as the smoke still lingered in Rawalpindi, President Bush demanded that those responsible for Bhutto's death be caught and punished. "The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy," Bush told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where he had arrived Wednesday to begin a long New Year's holiday. "Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice."

But there are some who think the Bush Administration is not without blame. Hussain Haqqani, a former top aide to Bhutto and now a professor at Boston University, thinks the U.S., which has counted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a key ally against terrorism since 9/11, bears some of the responsibility. "Washington will have to answer a lot of questions, especially the Administration," he says. "People like me have been making specific requests to American officials to intervene and ask for particular security arrangements be made for her, and they have been constantly just trusting the Musharraf Administration." U.S. officials said they were leery of intervening in another nation's internal affairs, and didn't want to give Bhutto Washington's imprimatur.

Haqqani is not shy about pointing fingers. He blames Musharraf himself, above all, for Bhutto's death. "It's quite clear that Musharraf does not want an election - you can quote me - he is the one who has constantly wanted anybody who can threaten him or his power, out." Haqqani told Congress in October that U.S. aid for Pakistan has for too long been tilted toward the Pakistani military. "Since 1954 almost $21 billion had been given to Pakistan in aid," he told the House Armed Services Committee. "Of this, $17.7 billion were given under military rule, and only $3.4 billion was given to Pakistan and the civilian government."

It is Musharraf's iron grip on power that has made Washington's own policy toward Pakistan such a target of criticism. While Washington has publicly extolled the virtues of democracy and hoped that Bhutto's return to Pakistan in October would usher in a power-sharing deal with Musharraf, it was also clearly nervous about the instability if the country's strong man were to lose power entirely. Pakistan - the world's second-most-populous Muslim nation, with elements of al-Qaeda and the Taliban controlling lawless mountainous pockets in the northwest - is also the only Islamic state with a nuclear arsenal. And though Washington publicly says Pakistan's nuclear weapons are safe, there are always private concerns about their security, concerns that will only heighten in the wake of Bhutto's assassination.

The U.S. has few options in Pakistan. One thing is clear, says Peter Galbraith, senior fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: It is "not a good idea to have 70 nuclear weapons in the hands of a country that is falling apart." Some observers believe that U.S. policy in Pakistan has favored personalities over principles. "We have a bad habit of always personalizing our foreign policy," says P.J. Crowley, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "We've done it with Musharraf, and we did it with respect to Bhutto. We are very good at providing technical support to the Pakistani army. We are not good at building indigenous or effective local political processes or strong institutions of government." Given the realities on the ground, the U.S. is likely to continue to throw its support behind Musharraf. "In terms of political leadership, Pakistan does not have a deep bench," says Crowley.

Some will say Bhutto had a death wish; one U.S. official even termed her presence at large-scale campaign rallies "foolhardy", given the Karachi suicide bombing that killed more than 140 people on October 18, the day she returned from exile. She returned to Pakistan and faced a range of powerful anti-democratic enemies, including both religious extremists like al-Qaeda and corrupt branches of the Pakistani military and intelligence services. "When you have the criminal and corrupt in the same camp it makes for dangerous bedfellows," says Arsalan Iftikhar, contributing editor to Islamica magazine. "In a sense Benazir knew she was on a martyrdom mission. She was willing to give up her life for democracy."

Senator Joseph Biden, the Delaware Democratic and presidential candidate, echoed Haqqani's view that Musharraf, at a minimum, didn't provide Bhutto with adequate security. In fact, he twice urged the Pakistani President to bolster Bhutto's protection. "The failure to protect Ms. Bhutto raises a lot of hard questions for the government and security services that must be answered," said Biden, who is also chairman of the foreign relations committee. "The U.S. should offer any assistance necessary, including investigative teams, to get to the bottom of this horror."

Still, the former top U.S. military commander in that part of the world said it's wrong to blame Musharraf, or the U.S. "I think it is al-Qaeda - they're the only ones who gain from this," says Anthony Zinni, a retired four-star Marine general who served as chief of the U.S. Central Command - responsible for Pakistan - from 1997 to 2000. Zinni rattled off reasons for al-Qaeda's wanting Bhutto dead, including her commitment to democracy, her secular views, the blowback it will create for Musharraf, and her gender.

Beyond that, Zinni says al-Qaeda - making marginal progress in Afghanistan, backsliding in Iraq, and rebuffed in Somalia - is looking for a new battlefield. "I really think they're trying to ignite Pakistan into the kind of chaos they need to survive," Zinni says, "and create a fundamentalist, even radical, Islamic government." "This is one of the worst things that could happen to Musharraf," he continues. "In part, because he'll be accused of doing it."
Zinni also disputes the idea that Washington could have done anything to prevent the assassination. "You want Blackwater out there providing security for her?" he asked, referring to the controversial U.S. private-security firm implicated in the deaths of many Iraqi civilians. "The losing of Pakistan - to whatever degree we've lost it, and I wouldn't write it off yet - goes back to after the first Afghan war," Zinni says, when Washington neglected the Afghan-Pakistan border roiling with insurgents. "We put them in a bad situation that we helped create," Zinni says. "I'm no fan of this Administration, but you can't criticize this Administration for what they inherited."

[Mavs Man]

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i135/housetango/MoviesTV/TheTruthIsOutThere.jpg

Ah, man - you beat me to it.

I love the X-Files.

I agree. It got a little carried away with the alien conspiracy theory story towards the end, but it was still good.

[Cajuncowboy]

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i135/housetango/MoviesTV/TheTruthIsOutThere.jpg

I love the X-Files.
:lmao2:
OK, we don't see eye to eye on about anything but gotta give ya mad props on that one.

:thumbup:

[Cajuncowboy]

Didn't take long...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/wherebhuttosdeathleavestheus

Wow! Did I nail that one or what? Figured it might take a few days but some of these losers don't waste time. These guys are way too easy to read.

[StevenOtero]

Wow! Did I nail that one or what? Figured it might take a few days but some of these losers don't waste time. These guys are way too easy to read.You have no facts about this assassination. Yet someone that questions it is a loser. Classic.

[Cajuncowboy]

You have no facts about this assassination. Yet someone that questions it is a loser. Classic.

I said I nailed it in an earlier post about someone blaming Bush. And someone else who has no facts about the assassination blames Bush and you defend him?

I don't know what your beef is but you need to get off it. For someone who is so adamant that Bush is the Devil, you need to have something more than conspiracy kooks and knee jerk reactionists.

[burmafrd]

Otero is just another young kid. So many demonize Bush and conservatives that he is caught in the wash. Sad thing is he will probably go to a school with lots of lib professors who will keep it up. He is so far to the fringe already, at his young age, I see little hope he will ever pull himself out of it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Otero is just another young kid. So many demonize Bush and conservatives that he is caught in the wash. Sad thing is he will probably go to a school with lots of lib professors who will keep it up. He is so far to the fringe already, at his young age, I see little hope he will ever pull himself out of it.

Just because people despise bush...does not mean they are in the same league as Otero. I am far from the conspiracy enthusiast that he is.

Furthermore, I would say those that STILL support bush need to give it up.

Bush is not responsible for everything...but he is hardly someone worth backing at this point.

[heavyg]

Otero is just another young kid. So many demonize Bush and conservatives that he is caught in the wash. Sad thing is he will probably go to a school with lots of lib professors who will keep it up. He is so far to the fringe already, at his young age, I see little hope he will ever pull himself out of it.


I can't remeber where I heard/read this but IMO its funny:

If your under 30 and a Republican you have no heart

If your over 30 and a Democrate you have no brain

[BrAinPaiNt]

I can't remeber where I heard/read this but IMO its funny:

If your under 30 and a Republican you have no heart

If your over 30 and a Democrate you have no brain

So where does that leave the bush backers...because he is FAR from a true conservative.

[StevenOtero]

Otero is just another young kid. So many demonize Bush and conservatives that he is caught in the wash. Sad thing is he will probably go to a school with lots of lib professors who will keep it up. He is so far to the fringe already, at his young age, I see little hope he will ever pull himself out of it.There are a lot more than just me. Even my family knows a lot of what is fed to us is a crock. My family isn't a bunch of blind Republicans, or weak Democrats at this point.

[heavyg]

So where does that leave the bush backers...because he is FAR from a true conservative.

I was/am a Bush backer. I think his first term was spot on. However, I am very dissapointed in his second term. But he was still better than the other option IMO. He has been put in a position of Damned if he does and Damned if he don't. What I mean is you have one side demanding he pull out of Iraq. Well what if he did and all hell breaks lose (which will happen IMO). Then the other said will be on him screaming he pulled out too soon and left the Iraqi people hanging.. Personally I hate the whole middle east involvement. They have been that way since the beggining of time and will always be that way. It is up to them to change. But we are there now and we have to see it through at least to a point of doing everything we possibly can and leave them in the best possible shape once we do pull out.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I was/am a Bush backer. I think his first term was spot on. However, I am very dissapointed in his second term. But he was still better than the other option IMO. He has been put in a position of Damned if he does and Damned if he don't. What I mean is you have one side demanding he pull out of Iraq. Well what if he did and all hell breaks lose (which will happen IMO). Then the other said will be on him screaming he pulled out too soon and left the Iraqi people hanging.. Personally I hate the whole middle east involvement. They have been that way since the beggining of time and will always be that way. It is up to them to change. But we are there now and we have to see it through at least to a point of doing everything we possibly can and leave them in the best possible shape once we do pull out.

Still a bush backer...and you post a saying about questioning someones brain?

[heavyg]

Still a bush backer...and you post a saying about questioning someones brain?


Did you even read what I wrote? I said I am very dissapointed in his second term. I do not want to be in the middle east at all. But we can not just pull out of there like some are wanting us too.

[StevenOtero]

I was/am a Bush backer. I think his first term was spot on. However, I am very dissapointed in his second term. But he was still better than the other option IMO. He has been put in a position of Damned if he does and Damned if he don't. What I mean is you have one side demanding he pull out of Iraq. Well what if he did and all hell breaks lose (which will happen IMO). Then the other said will be on him screaming he pulled out too soon and left the Iraqi people hanging.. Personally I hate the whole middle east involvement. They have been that way since the beggining of time and will always be that way. It is up to them to change. But we are there now and we have to see it through at least to a point of doing everything we possibly can and leave them in the best possible shape once we do pull out.I just hope you aren't another one that goes around saying "If we weren't over there (Iraq) they would be over here." That is a VERY general statement.

[heavyg]

I just hope you aren't another one that goes around saying "If we weren't over there (Iraq) they would be over here." That is a VERY general statement.

Actually yes I believe if we hadn't took the fight to them we would be fighting them here. And we still might have to fight them here. But you go right ahead and stick your head back in the sand and pretend that the terrorist will just leave us alone if we leave them alone

[StevenOtero]

Actually yes I believe if we hadn't took the fight to them we would be fighting them here. And we still might have to fight them here. But you go right ahead and stick your head back in the sand and pretend that the terrorist will just leave us alone if we leave them aloneI'm not the one with my head in the sand. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Hell even if you believe the official story it still doesn't match to Iraq. Afghanistan yes, Iraq no. The ones with their head in the sand are the ones that don't question the government. You have to question things, otherwise you'll liberties will slip away.

[heavyg]

I'm not the one with my head in the sand. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Hell even if you believe the official story it still doesn't match to Iraq. Afghanistan yes, Iraq no.

I will give you Iraq. But you said terrorists. Im not talking about Iraq. I said take the fight to them. Meaning the terrorists. Lets agree on Iraq that we should find a way to get out of there as soon as possible. But we can not ignore terrorists. Because they sure won't ignore us.

[StevenOtero]

I will give you Iraq. But you said terrorists. Im not talking about Iraq. I said take the fight to them. Meaning the terrorists. Lets agree on Iraq that we should find a way to get out of there as soon as possible. But we can not ignore terrorists. Because they sure won't ignore us.Finally, a voice of reason.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Did you even read what I wrote? I said I am very dissapointed in his second term. I do not want to be in the middle east at all. But we can not just pull out of there like some are wanting us too.

Yes I read I was/AM

Just a shock to the system to see people still backing the man.

I guess 3 people of the 23% that still back bush happen to post on this board.

It's a small world after all.:D

[burmafrd]

Probably more then that brain- they just do not feel like trying to argue with blank walls.
I get easily bored so that is why I post here.

Ron Paul just said we should immediately pull all aid from Pakistan right now. Now talk about stupid....

[Rackat]

I support Bush because he is the President. Just as I supported Clinton when he was the President. It doesn't mean I think he's wonderful and has done an outstanding job, it just means that he is the President. I love my country and want it to succeed. If that makes me an idiot, then call me an idiot.

I despised Bill Clinton and hated what he did to the military. But he was the CIC and where he said to go fight, we went and fought.

I hated Jimmy Carter for being such a panty waist non-leading liberal bunghole. But when he was President, I wanted him to succeed. It meant my country would be coming back from the recession that was driving my parents crazy. I despised him for not launching an immediate invasion of Iran to take the Mullah's down and get our people.

It irks me to know end that we were left with Gerald Ford, our only un-elected President, when Nixon resigned, but at least he didn't screw it all the way up.

I was seven or eight when Nixon resigned, and it galls me that the man fouled up so bad that history will only remember the resignation and not the fact that he opened up China.

Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal. It pissed me off that Lt.Col. Oliver North got off so easily. I love that he took on the USSR and made them back down. I love that you could see his love of our country. It's not something I have seen in any of the President's eyes since Reagan left office.

Every President we've had has good and bad qualities, have done good and bad things. But to call someone a name for supporting the leader of their country, regardless of political affiliation, is assinine.

[Viper]

Finally, a voice of reason.

Wait, I'm under the impression you believe the US is responsible for 911. Why would you support any action in the middle east?

[Viper]

I support Bush because he is the President. Just as I supported Clinton when he was the President. It doesn't mean I think he's wonderful and has done an outstanding job, it just means that he is the President. I love my country and want it to succeed. If that makes me an idiot, then call me an idiot.

I despised Bill Clinton and hated what he did to the military. But he was the CIC and where he said to go fight, we went and fought.

I hated Jimmy Carter for being such a panty waist non-leading liberal bunghole. But when he was President, I wanted him to succeed. It meant my country would be coming back from the recession that was driving my parents crazy. I despised him for not launching an immediate invasion of Iran to take the Mullah's down and get our people.

It irks me to know end that we were left with Gerald Ford, our only un-elected President, when Nixon resigned, but at least he didn't screw it all the way up.

I was seven or eight when Nixon resigned, and it galls me that the man fouled up so bad that history will only remember the resignation and not the fact that he opened up China.

Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal. It pissed me off that Lt.Col. Oliver North got off so easily. I love that he took on the USSR and made them back down. I love that you could see his love of our country. It's not something I have seen in any of the President's eyes since Reagan left office.

Every President we've had has good and bad qualities, have done good and bad things. But to call someone a name for supporting the leader of their country, regardless of political affiliation, is assinine.

excellant post

[zrinkill]

I support Bush because he is the President. Just as I supported Clinton when he was the President. It doesn't mean I think he's wonderful and has done an outstanding job, it just means that he is the President. I love my country and want it to succeed. If that makes me an idiot, then call me an idiot.

I despised Bill Clinton and hated what he did to the military. But he was the CIC and where he said to go fight, we went and fought.

I hated Jimmy Carter for being such a panty waist non-leading liberal bunghole. But when he was President, I wanted him to succeed. It meant my country would be coming back from the recession that was driving my parents crazy. I despised him for not launching an immediate invasion of Iran to take the Mullah's down and get our people.

It irks me to know end that we were left with Gerald Ford, our only un-elected President, when Nixon resigned, but at least he didn't screw it all the way up.

I was seven or eight when Nixon resigned, and it galls me that the man fouled up so bad that history will only remember the resignation and not the fact that he opened up China.

Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal. It pissed me off that Lt.Col. Oliver North got off so easily. I love that he took on the USSR and made them back down. I love that you could see his love of our country. It's not something I have seen in any of the President's eyes since Reagan left office.

Every President we've had has good and bad qualities, have done good and bad things. But to call someone a name for supporting the leader of their country, regardless of political affiliation, is assinine.

Nice ...

[StevenOtero]

Wait, I'm under the impression you believe the US is responsible for 911. Why would you support any action in the middle east?I don't support Iraq at all. I support Afghanistan somewhat because we got the Taliban out of there.

[StevenOtero]

I support Bush because he is the President. Just as I supported Clinton when he was the President. It doesn't mean I think he's wonderful and has done an outstanding job, it just means that he is the President. I love my country and want it to succeed. If that makes me an idiot, then call me an idiot.

I despised Bill Clinton and hated what he did to the military. But he was the CIC and where he said to go fight, we went and fought.

I hated Jimmy Carter for being such a panty waist non-leading liberal bunghole. But when he was President, I wanted him to succeed. It meant my country would be coming back from the recession that was driving my parents crazy. I despised him for not launching an immediate invasion of Iran to take the Mullah's down and get our people.

It irks me to know end that we were left with Gerald Ford, our only un-elected President, when Nixon resigned, but at least he didn't screw it all the way up.

I was seven or eight when Nixon resigned, and it galls me that the man fouled up so bad that history will only remember the resignation and not the fact that he opened up China.

Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal. It pissed me off that Lt.Col. Oliver North got off so easily. I love that he took on the USSR and made them back down. I love that you could see his love of our country. It's not something I have seen in any of the President's eyes since Reagan left office.

Every President we've had has good and bad qualities, have done good and bad things. But to call someone a name for supporting the leader of their country, regardless of political affiliation, is assinine.Hey, I agree with that post 100%. Clinton did some bad things, but man our economy wasn't bad like it is now. The value of the dollar is dropping fast.

[StevenOtero]

Probably more then that brain- they just do not feel like trying to argue with blank walls.
I get easily bored so that is why I post here.

Ron Paul just said we should immediately pull all aid from Pakistan right now. Now talk about stupid....Can you give me a link? I believe you.. I just want to read it.

[heavyg]

Hey, I agree with that post 100%. Clinton did some bad things, but man our economy wasn't bad like it is now. The value of the dollar is dropping fast.

Our economy is bad right now because of the war. As far as me personally I have more money on my check now than I ever did when Clinton was in office. That is due to the taxation of Clintion. I would pay in $5000 during the year and still owe $1200 under Clinton :bang2:

[StevenOtero]

Our economy is bad right now because of the war. As far as me personally I have more money on my check now than I ever did when Clinton was in office. That is due to the taxation of Clintion. I would pay in $5000 during the year and still owe $1200 under Clinton :bang2:I'll take your word for it.

[zrinkill]

Our economy is bad right now because of the war. As far as me personally I have more money on my check now than I ever did when Clinton was in office. That is due to the taxation of Clintion. I would pay in $5000 during the year and still owe $1200 under Clinton :bang2:

Me as well ..... the Clinton years was hell for the Small business owner.

[Danny White]

Me as well ..... the Clinton years was hell for the Small business owner.

Thankfully, I'm in the business of making money from wacky liberal exploits, so I'm covered even if Hillary wins and jacks up my taxes! :p:

[heavyg]

Thankfully, I'm in the business of making money from wacky liberal exploits, so I'm covered even if Hillary wins and jacks up my taxes! :p:


Please explain how the rest of us pesants can get in on this ;-) :bow:

[Danny White]

Please explain how the rest of us pesants can get in on this ;-) :bow:

First, you have to apply to get one of these:


http://www.gun-nuttery.com/vrwc.gif

[heavyg]

First, you have to apply to get one of these:


http://www.gun-nuttery.com/vrwc.gif


Think I will pass....not much of a conspiracy theorist wether it be right or left wing.....lol

[Danny White]

Think I will pass....not much of a conspiracy theorist wether it be right or left wing.....lol

What a shame... I was going to teach you the secret handshake. :D

[heavyg]

What a shame... I was going to teach you the secret handshake. :D

LMAO!!

[Mavs Man]

Our economy is bad right now because of the war.


That, and dumb lending practices in residential real estate (and primarily the subprime mortgage area).

[BrAinPaiNt]

LMAO!!

You will soon find out that the secret hand shake he wants to teach you only involves HIS hand and something else of yours. :p: :laugh2:

[burmafrd]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318741,00.html

As usual he has some facts wrong. We NEVER supported Usama Ben Laden.
Our aid to the Afghan Mujahadeen ended before Usama started up.

Admit he has been consistent about dropping pakistan- he has been saying that for months. Of course when he is pressed for alternatives to supporting our troops in Afghanistan without Pakistan he is unable to reply. Fact is that the only good way to get supplies into Afghanistan is from Pakistan.

[StevenOtero]

HELLO: Well, I think we should treat Pakistan a long time ago like we should treat all countries. We should mind our own business and stay out of supporting military dictators. And that's what Musharraf is. He overthrew an elected government, and we reward him by supporting him. He becomes our puppet. We have sent him about $10 billion over the last eight years. And the candidate that represents democracy, Bhutto, comes in, and she gets killed.

[StevenOtero]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318741,00.html

As usual he has some facts wrong. We NEVER supported Usama Ben Laden.
Our aid to the Afghan Mujahadeen ended before Usama started up.

Admit he has been consistent about dropping pakistan- he has been saying that for months. Of course when he is pressed for alternatives to supporting our troops in Afghanistan without Pakistan he is unable to reply. Fact is that the only good way to get supplies into Afghanistan is from Pakistan.How the CIA created Osama bin Laden

19 September 2001

BY NORM DIXON

“Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are on the defensive — on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man — in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America ... [They are] freedom fighters.”

Is this a call to jihad (holy war) taken from one of Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden's notorious fatwas? Or perhaps a communique issued by the repressive Taliban regime in Kabul?

In fact, this glowing praise of the murderous exploits of today's supporters of arch-terrorist bin Laden and his Taliban collaborators, and their holy war against the “evil empire”, was issued by US President Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985. The “evil empire” was the Soviet Union, as well as Third World movements fighting US-backed colonialism, apartheid and dictatorship.

How things change. In the aftermath of a series of terrorist atrocities — the most despicable being the mass murder of more than 6000 working people in New York and Washington on September 11 — bin Laden the “freedom fighter” is now lambasted by US leaders and the Western mass media as a “terrorist mastermind” and an “evil-doer”.

Yet the US government refuses to admit its central role in creating the vicious movement that spawned bin Laden, the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists that plague Algeria and Egypt — and perhaps the disaster that befell New York.

The mass media has also downplayed the origins of bin Laden and his toxic brand of Islamic fundamentalism.
Mujaheddin

In April 1978, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized power in Afghanistan in reaction to a crackdown against the party by that country's repressive government.

The PDPA was committed to a radical land reform that favoured the peasants, trade union rights, an expansion of education and social services, equality for women and the separation of church and state. The PDPA also supported strengthening Afghanistan's relationship with the Soviet Union.

Such policies enraged the wealthy semi-feudal landlords, the Muslim religious establishment (many mullahs were also big landlords) and the tribal chiefs. They immediately began organising resistance to the government's progressive policies, under the guise of defending Islam.

Washington, fearing the spread of Soviet influence (and worse the new government's radical example) to its allies in Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf states, immediately offered support to the Afghan mujaheddin, as the “contra” force was known.

Following an internal PDPA power struggle in December 1979 which toppled Afghanistan's leader, thousands of Soviet troops entered the country to prevent the new government's fall. This only galvanised the disparate fundamentalist factions. Their reactionary jihad now gained legitimacy as a “national liberation” struggle in the eyes of many Afghans.

The Soviet Union was eventually to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989 and the mujaheddin captured the capital, Kabul, in 1992.

Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured at least US$6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin factions. Other Western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more.

Washington's policy in Afghanistan was shaped by US President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and was continued by his successors. His plan went far beyond simply forcing Soviet troops to withdraw; rather it aimed to foster an international movement to spread Islamic fanaticism into the Muslim Central Asian Soviet republics to destabilise the Soviet Union.

Brzezinski's grand plan coincided with Pakistan military dictator General Zia ul-Haq's own ambitions to dominate the region. US-run Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe beamed Islamic fundamentalist tirades across Central Asia (while paradoxically denouncing the “Islamic revolution” that toppled the pro-US Shah of Iran in 1979).

Washington's favoured mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The West's distaste for terrorism did not apply to this unsavoury “freedom fighter”. Hekmatyar was notorious in the 1970s for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.

After the mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992, Hekmatyar's forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city — killing at least 2000 civilians — until the new government agreed to give him the post of prime minister. Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction.

Hekmatyar was also infamous for his side trade in the cultivation and trafficking in opium. Backing of the mujaheddin from the CIA coincided with a boom in the drug business. Within two years, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border was the world's single largest source of heroin, supplying 60% of US drug users.

In 1995, the former director of the CIA's operation in Afghanistan was unrepentant about the explosion in the flow of drugs: “Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets... There was a fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.”
Made in the USA

According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).

John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims” were taught “sabotage skills”.

The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained “bin Laden's operatives” in 1989.

These “operatives” were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar's forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army's elite Green Berets.

The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called “Operation Cyclone”.

In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin factions by an organisation known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services — MAK).

MAK was a front for Pakistan's CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK.

Among those trained by Mohammed were El Sayyid Nosair, who was jailed in 1995 for killing Israeli rightist Rabbi Meir Kahane and plotting with others to bomb New York landmarks, including the World Trade Center in 1993.

The Independent also suggested that Shiekh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian religious leader also jailed for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was also part of Operation Cyclone. He entered the US in 1990 with the CIA's approval. A confidential CIA report concluded that the agency was “partly culpable” for the 1993 World Trade Center blast, the Independent reported.
Bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, one of 20 sons of a billionaire construction magnate, arrived in Afghanistan to join the jihad in 1980. An austere religious fanatic and business tycoon, bin Laden specialised in recruiting, financing and training the estimated 35,000 non-Afghan mercenaries who joined the mujaheddin.

The bin Laden family is a prominent pillar of the Saudi Arabian ruling class, with close personal, financial and political ties to that country's pro-US royal family.

Bin Laden senior was appointed Saudi Arabia's minister of public works as a favour by King Faisal. The new minister awarded his own construction companies lucrative contracts to rebuild Islam's holiest mosques in Mecca and Medina. In the process, the bin Laden family company in 1966 became the world's largest private construction company.

Osama bin Laden's father died in 1968. Until 1994, he had access to the dividends from this ill-gotten business empire.

(Bin Laden junior's oft-quoted personal fortune of US$200-300 million has been arrived at by the US State Department by dividing today's value of the bin Laden family net worth — estimated to be US$5 billion — by the number of bin Laden senior's sons. A fact rarely mentioned is that in 1994 the bin Laden family disowned Osama and took control of his share.)

Osama's military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime. His close working relationship with MAK also meant that the CIA was fully aware of his activities.

Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, “Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did.”

In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built “training camps”, some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them.

These camps, now dubbed “terrorist universities” by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism — car bombing and so on — so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.”

Al Qaeda (the Base), bin Laden's organisation, was established in 1987-88 to run the camps and other business enterprises. It is a tightly-run capitalist holding company — albeit one that integrates the operations of a mercenary force and related logistical services with “legitimate” business operations.

Bin Laden has simply continued to do the job he was asked to do in Afghanistan during the 1980s — fund, feed and train mercenaries. All that has changed is his primary customer. Then it was the ISI and, behind the scenes, the CIA. Today, his services are utilised primarily by the reactionary Taliban regime.

Bin Laden only became a “terrorist” in US eyes when he fell out with the Saudi royal family over its decision to allow more than 540,000 US troops to be stationed on Saudi soil following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

When thousands of US troops remained in Saudi Arabia after the end of the Gulf War, bin Laden's anger turned to outright opposition. He declared that Saudi Arabia and other regimes — such as Egypt — in the Middle East were puppets of the US, just as the PDPA government of Afghanistan had been a puppet of the Soviet Union.

He called for the overthrow of these client regimes and declared it the duty of all Muslims to drive the US out of the Gulf states. In 1994, he was stripped of his Saudi citizenship and forced to leave the country. His assets there were frozen.

After a period in Sudan, he returned to Afghanistan in May 1996. He refurbished the camps he had helped build during the Afghan war and offered the facilities and services — and thousands of his mercenaries — to the Taliban, which took power that September.

Today, bin Laden's private army of non-Afghan religious fanatics is a key prop of the Taliban regime.

Prior to the devastating September 11 attack on the twin towers of World Trade Center, US ruling-class figures remained unrepentant about the consequences of their dirty deals with the likes of bin Laden, Hekmatyar and the Taliban. Since the awful attack, they have been downright hypocritical.

In an August 28, 1998, report posted on MSNBC, Michael Moran quotes Senator Orrin Hatch, who was a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee which approved US dealings with the mujaheddin, as saying he would make “the same call again”, even knowing what bin Laden would become.

“It was worth it. Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union.”

Hatch today is one of the most gung-ho voices demanding military retaliation.

Another face that has appeared repeatedly on television screens since the attack has been Vincent Cannistrano, described as a former CIA chief of “counter-terrorism operations”.

Cannistrano is certainly an expert on terrorists like bin Laden, because he directed their “work”. He was in charge of the CIA-backed Nicaraguan contras during the early 1980s. In 1984, he became the supervisor of covert aid to the Afghan mujaheddin for the US National Security Council.

The last word goes to Zbigniew Brzezinski: “What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

[Danny White]

You will soon find out that the secret hand shake he wants to teach you only involves HIS hand and something else of yours. :p: :laugh2:

You leave Ann out of this!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/Schenk/PZSig.jpg

[Cajuncowboy]

You leave Ann out of this!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/Schenk/PZSig.jpg

Quite possibly one of my all time favorite photos.

Kinda makes us Right Wing lunatics wish we were Danny White for a moment. :D

[Viper]

I don't support Iraq at all. I support Afghanistan somewhat because we got the Taliban out of there.

Why do you support Afghanistan, what did the Taliban do that has you so upset?

[Cajuncowboy]

Why do you support Afghanistan, what did the Taliban do that has you so upset?

Good question. Obviously they had nothing to do with 9/11.

[burmafrd]

The taliban was an ally to Ben Laden-so when we went after Him they protected him and that was how the war started in Afghanistan.
The Law Of Unintended consequences= always applies.
Actually the Islamic Fundamentalists got control in the early 90s. Up to then, there was no interest in making the whole world Islamic. Only when the real crazies Like ben laden took over did they start exporting the problem. You really have to wonder sometimes how the CIA can so consitently screw up like they do; there can be no other agency on earth that has been so wrong so often. They should have kept close tabs on Ben Laden and the moment that he started trying to export terrorism we should have punched his ticket.
I have to laugh at so many of the liberals who keep trying to blame bush for everything- this article showed how it was JIMMY CARTER who really started it all.

[ThaBigP]

Good God so much ground to cover here:

First, the humorously misinformed rant about how the US created Bin Laden and the modern islamo-facist movement in Afghanistan by supporting the Mujahedeen (and recently amplified by the movie "Charlie Wilson's War", which got many of the same facts wrong). First, it was the CIA, and the CIA alone (pretty much) who insisted on supporting Gulbuddin. Charlie Wilson, Ronald Reagan, and Dr Jack Wheeler all pushed for supporting Ahmad Shah Massoud, who (along with his Mujahedeen faction) were doing most of the heavy lifting against the Soviets.

The CIA has historically been an "empire building" wing of the executive branch of the US government. Even eliminating the unprovable conspiracy theories (JFK, 9/11, Iraq WMD intel, UFOs, etc etc), there are many historical accounts of the CIA deliberately withholding information, or putting out false information in order to further the political aims of its leadership, often times conflicting with the political aims of the elected President, Congress, etc., who the CIA is *supposed* to be working for, not against. In this case, the CIA *knew* that Gulbuddin was a bad apple, but continued to force their view that *he* was the one the US should support. To make matters worse, he wasn't just a bad apple - he was litterally sitting on his hands, amassing a stockpile of US weapons presumably to be used later after the Soviet ejection so he could seize power for himself. Charlie Wilson, Dr Wheeler and Reagan had to go over the heads of the CIA in order to switch our support to the "good guys" as it were. In fact, I can give you a name: CIA Deputy Director John McMahon. He stonewalled the attempt to drop supoprt for Gulbuddin until Reagan ***** slapped him and forced his resignation. But the damage had already been done in that Bulbuddin was sitting on his stockpile of US supplied weapons and cash. It was so bad that the US covertly issued a request that Gulbuddin be eliminated. But he escaped the assasination attempt carried out by the Massoud faction.

So you see, one moron in the CIA made a decision based on personal preference (counter to the President and everyone on down). Now, people like Charlie Wilson, Dr Wheeler and President Reagan are the ones collectively thrown under the bus for "creating" Bin Laden, when in fact they did everything they could to stop and reverse the damage done by supporting the wrong faction. Oh, and was there any mention of Bin Laden at that time? Nope. He wasn't a big player there. The Afghan War is a trophy a lot of Islamo-facists like to run around holding over their heads, when in many cases they were never there, just claiming credit after the fact. It's not unlike those fraud videos you see where a bus gets in a crash and every Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane standing on the sidelines rushes to get on the bus so they can claim injuries and collect money. That's all Bin Laden is - a huckster trying to sell himself as an Afghan Mujahedeen hero. He just jumped on the bus years after the crash to collect the payout of "street cred" in the Islamic community.

An excellent article about the "Charlie Wilson's War" scenario is here, penned by Dr Wheeler - TONS of good info about the backroom battles that went on in the government of the CIA position.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59402

[ThaBigP]

Here's a nice quote from the article about the CIA's handling of the whole affair:



One month after 9/11, in October 2001, I wrote Gulbuddin and the CIA, stating:

"The CIA's obsession to support Gulbuddin in vast preference to all other mujahedeen leaders bordered on the pathological."
It was Gust Avrakotos in particular I was referring to in that article when I said:
Every CIA agent I ever talked to – especially the armchair analysts at Langley – was insufferably condescending whenever I would state that Gulbuddin's people did no fighting, that the other groups were begging for weapons while the Hezbis had an oversupply of weapons they didn't use. The agents would patronizingly assure me their "intel" contradicted what I and every other independent observer who actually went into Afghanistan saw with our own eyes – so we all must be wrong.

While it's mis-informed to say that the US created Bin Laden, it is altogether proper to say that the decision by the Dpt Director of the CIA (and some others in the CIA) led to the conditions in which Bin Laden could/would thrive and ascend to prominence. Now, do you feel all warm and fuzzy about the recent CIA intel report saying that Iran has haulted it's nuclear weapons development, even though all evidence points in the other direction? Heh. Didn't think so. This is what I mean when I say the CIA has a record of historically foisting its own policy views on the rest of the government under the disguise of "intelligence assesments".