Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush Is Badly Screwing Up the War on Terror

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted February 21, 2007.


Al-Qaeda's resurgence in new Pakistani strongholds is the latest sign that George W. Bush is losing the 'Global War on Terror' and has become a dangerous liability to the American people.
02212007story
02212007Story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Robert Parry

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Despite the sacrifices in lives, treasure and liberties, the painful reality is that the United States is losing the "war on terror" -- in large part because too many people in the Middle East and across the globe view George W. Bush as a bully and a hypocrite.

Bush has become the ugly face of America, mouthing pretty words about freedom and democracy while threatening other nations and bludgeoning those who get in his way. Perhaps even worse, Bush has shown himself to be an incompetent commander, especially for a conflict as complicated and nuanced as this one.

Indeed, it is hard to envision how the United States can win the crucial battles for the hearts and minds of key populations if Bush remains President. Arguably, Bush has become a "clear and present danger" to the interests of the American people -- yet he still has almost two years left in his term.

This predicament -- the desperate need for new U.S. leadership and the difficult fact of being stuck with Bush -- was underscored by the Feb. 19 lead article in the New York Times describing the revival of al-Qaeda as a worldwide terror network operating out of new bases in remote sections of Pakistan.

"American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan," the Times reported.

"As recently as 2005, American intelligence assessments described senior leaders of al-Qaeda as cut off from their foot soldiers and able only to provide inspiration for future attacks. But more recent intelligence describes the organization's hierarchy as intact and strengthening," the Times wrote.

The Times quoted one American government official as saying "the chain of command has been reestablished" and that al-Qaeda's "leadership command and control is robust."

In the face of this al-Qaeda comeback, the Bush administration is reportedly debating whether to launch military strikes inside Pakistan. But that would risk destabilizing the dictatorship of Gen. Pervez Musharraf and conceivably provoking the nightmare scenario of Islamic fundamentalists gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

In other words, more than five years into the "war on terror," Bush has overseen a strategy that has simultaneously alienated world public opinion -- with scandals over Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and secret CIA prisons -- while fueling Islamic extremism and giving new life to the 9/11 masterminds.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as "grave and deteriorating." But the same description would fit for the broader strategic position of the United States in the Middle East.

The U.S. military is facing a worsening crisis in Iraq; the Taliban is on the rise again in Afghanistan; Hezbollah is gaining strength in Lebanon; Iran is defying international pressure over its nuclear program; and now al-Qaeda -- having resettled in Pakistan -- is rebuilding its capability to strike targets beyond the Middle East.

Bush's mistakes

Much of today's crisis can be traced to Bush's arrogance and impatience. In 2001, even before the 9/11 attacks, Bush insisted on a "unilateralist" approach toward the world, asserting U.S. global hegemony under a strategy laid out by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.

At the center of this grandiose scheme was the belief that the oil-rich Middle East could be remade through violent "regime change" in hostile countries like Iraq. Bush later broadened his target list to the "axis of evil," tossing in Iran and North Korea and making clear that other lesser enemies included the likes of Syria, Cuba and Venezuela.

While this neoconservative plan wrapped itself in the noble language of "democracy," the concept was always less about respecting the will of indigenous populations than in restructuring their economies along "free market" lines and ensuring compliant leaders.

In all of this, there was little room for compromise or negotiation with the "bad guys." It was as if the macho rhetoric of AM talk radio and Fox News had swallowed U.S. foreign policy. Real men don't negotiate with people who get in the way; you jail or kill them.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bush, war on terror

Robert Parry's new book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
NO MATTER WHAT PARTY YOU ARE IN
Posted by: Thundergod on Feb 21, 2007 12:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WE ALL NEED A FIRST CLASS PRESIDENT THAT CAN REPRESENT AMERICA IN A WAY THAT MAKES AMERICA LOOK LIKE IT IS...
A NATION THAT WANTS THE BEST IN THE WORLD AND WELCOMES ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD TO JOIN IN ON PEACE AND FAIRNESS TO ALL...

WHEN WE GET THAT AMERICA WILL BE BETTER.

STOP THE BUSHIT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Religious rite = ritual stupidity Posted by: kackermann
Reality TV for the 21st century
Posted by: edith on Feb 21, 2007 1:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article only underscores the need for Western nations to negotiate a long-term agreement with Iran to establish full diplomatic and economic ties with that major regional power which in turn would take over together with other local govts the bulk of the duties in fighting Al Queda in SW Asia.

As for Israel's objections, they are as relevant to the US as Al Queda's desire for a US presence in the area to stir things up.

The two major sources of terror in the world are Al Queda and Israel. They both should be dumped by their neighbors who rightly despise them.

Whether Zionist lovers like Rodham-Clinton, McCain, Obama (he'll convert to Judaism before Islam, so don't worry, neocons out there), Romney, Edwards and Gore could do the right thing by cutting Israel off and thus hitting Al Queda where it really hurts is of course highly dubious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Propaganda Slogan "War On Terror" is a FRAUD...
Posted by: Hal on Feb 21, 2007 1:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oddly enough many if not most don’t understand this…

“War on terror” was foisted up from the ashes of an ongoing and proven criminal 911 cover-up directly responsible for the shredding of America’s Bill of Rights and the bankrupting of the nation. All on behalf of blood money war for private corporate oligarchs.

Even George Orwell would have been amazed at the lies palmed off for a completely phony war pinned on CIA asset Osama bin Laden (a.k.a. Tim Osman).

“I saw papers that show the U.S. knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with airplanes… I gave [the 9-ll Commision] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented.”
MRS. SIBEL EDMONDS (former top-level FBI translator who gave closed session testimony to the 9-11 Commission. The Bush/Cheney administration silenced Edmonds with a court gag order citing the rarely used “state secrets privilege”. 4/2/04)

“It was a good thing for Israel…We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”
SIVAN KURZBERG (Israeli spy caught celebrating with his team on the New Jersey shore when jetliners struck the WTC twin towers. Kurzberg and his team declared knowledge of the “terrorist” act when such information was not known. Kurzberg and his crew were arrested by the FBI and released to Israel due to intense pressure from Israel and Washington 9/11/2001

“The bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq… And furthermore, the CIA knew this, the British intelligence knew this, Israeli intelligence knew this, German intelligence, the whole world knew this.”
SCOTT RITTER (ex-UNSCOM inspector stating the reality that all major intelligence services knew Saddam had no WMD before invasion and conquest of Iraq. In an interview with Seymour Hersh 10/19/05)

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on WMD [to invade Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on".
PAUL WOLFOWITZ (“neo-con” US Deputy Defense Secretary and chief architect of the Iraq War in an interview for Vanity Fair 2004)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Spot-on, Hal.... Posted by: David V
» Well Said ibemme... Posted by: Hal
» You almost have it Posted by: kackermann
» Too true Posted by: moflard
Bush has walked into every trap laid before him by al Qaeda
Posted by: Bobsays on Feb 21, 2007 2:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read Clauswitz's 'On War'. It was the building block for Mao's military writings which in turn have formed the bible for all insurgents and anti-imperialists. It says clearly that an over-whelming force can never win against a people determined to maintain their dignity and sovereignty.

Yet the US has ignored all of this. During the Vietnam war a survey was taken of West Point graduates going to 'Nam to lead troops. They found not a single one had read Mao or any of the guerilla literature out there. They hadn't clue where the Vietcong were coming from or what tactics and strategies they were using. And the same stands today.

The nimrods leading the troops haven't a clue about the cultures and countries they invade. They don't know how they think and can't anticipate their future actions. And thus they will always fall into their traps.

We need totally different people leading the west. We need people who are nuanced, not the idiot boys and girls who were good at sport and smiling for the parents, but live in such a narrow world view they can't even come close to imagining what life is like outside of a world of shopping malls, Monday night football, beer, and hanging out with frat boys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We are too vulnerable Posted by: kackermann
Didn't finish reading it yet and already I have two comments.... LOL
Posted by: Prophit on Feb 21, 2007 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Bin Laden is dead and so is his commander so WHO is rebuilding Al Qaeda????? Could it be their original sponsors in a country that enjoys the support of their original sponsors??

2. Today, February 21st 2007, this author says he "has become a dangerous liability to the American people???? NO, I AM SHOCKED, LOL He is 6 years too late. Many of us saw that years ago. Where was he back then before all this happened when we could have stopped it.

Will add to the list as I finish reading it. Just had to take the time to do this now before I forgot.... LOL I am getting older... LOL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hey, Prophit... Posted by: rockpicker
Right on the mark
Posted by: feduphoosier on Feb 21, 2007 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President," said deputy CIA director John McLaughlin in opening a meeting to review secret "strategic analysis" after the videotape had dominated the day's news, according to Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine, which draws heavily from CIA insiders.

Ah... there is that national media again, playing their part perfectly.

Bin Laden and Bush have a symbiotic relationship: bin Laden needs Bush as a foil to drive new recruits into al Qaeda, and Bush needs bin Laden to remain at large, so he will continue to scare Americans into 'going along.' Oddly, behind the scenes, the bin Laden family and the Bush family are undoubtedly still great business friends. Such tangled webs... but great profit to be had by all (well, except for the American and Iraqi people. But its never about the people, is it?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How can any war be won?
Posted by: mfogler on Feb 21, 2007 4:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're giving the "War on Terrorism" too much legitimacy. It's not like this war, if done differently would be won and everything would be great. Wars, let alone completely fabricated wars like the "War on Terrorism, are not won. "You can no more win a war than win an earthquake," said Jeannette Rankin. This whole thing is madness and it's criminal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Human Relationships
Posted by: Dboy on Feb 21, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author has analyzed the human relationships involved fairly well, but he's completely lost on the motive for these events. He needs to read more Alternet.

Dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Back on the Table
Posted by: Urstrly on Feb 21, 2007 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Parry: we can't withstand two more years of this, and if we don't have the votes for impeachment, what are the (legal) alternatives? Too many Democrats are absorbed in building their warchests, but I'm hoping someone not running for president will step forward. Since people seem to have written off Kucinich for president, maybe he'll start the ball rollling. Or maybe Ralph Nader and the Greens will rev up. I used to hope Colin Powell would be the guy, but it doesn't seem to be in him.

I remember thinking we'd never get rid of Nixon. Then Agnew was confronted with demanding bribes and the Watergate committee found "the smoking gun," and the whole administration collapsed. This administration is far more corrupt, and somewhere there's a thread that could unravel the whole thing. We just have to find it. If, for example, the US or the Israelis attack Iran, I can see that the Republicans might tip in favor of impeachment. I'm hoping for something less deadly myself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Back on the Table Posted by: oregoncharles
Bush is a liability for America
Posted by: sheena2u on Feb 21, 2007 4:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The way Bush has dealt with Al Queda is similar to the way he dealt with the disaster after hurricane Katrina. Bush is a simpleton, and he is a child in the worst sense of the word. Cheney seems to only care about lining his pockets, and is willing to sell the American people down the river to gain his aims. No, America cannot stand 23 more months of Bush/Cheney. If the Republicans can convince Bush and Cheney to step down they would be doing a great thing for America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LetsDance
Posted by: JonPaul on Feb 21, 2007 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The War on Terror", WHAT A CROCK! Anyone who believes that there is such a thing is a complete fool. The U.S. is conducting a 150 years war of terror against the world, it's resources and it's people. Everyone who repeats the drivel is culpable. WAKE UP!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"wily and ruthless" al-Qaeda a SHAM?
Posted by: Hal on Feb 21, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If evil old Al-Qaeda is not some kind of CIA snake oil sting why does Israel, Britain and the U.S. in the business of either faking if not planting themselves and pretending at being wicked al-Qaeda agents.

And even when these phony “al-Qaeda” actors get caught, they’re whisked away so others can presumably take their place and keep the bloody circus going.

Old CIA asset Osama bin “Tim Osman” Laden may have been tickled (if he were alive)…

Like I said, George Orwell would have had a field day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Buy the Premise Fight the War Support the Troops ...
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Feb 21, 2007 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not that there are no 'Terrorists'. There are always some terrorists. What there is not is "The Terrorists" a mysterious, band of supernaturally powerful 'others' who can 'want to kill us and our families' who can 'destroy our way of life' -- the fighting of which is our first, third, and last priority.

So we dispatch an army to a far away place to fight the terrorists. And in the nature of things, soldiers get killed, but when 'morale is good' they also enjoy the killing. Now the Brave Boys and Girls become one of the reasons to fight the war. The troops will feel bad if the people back home don't love and admire them. Not loving and admiring the troops, the mission and the commander puts the brave boys and girls at physical risk. We can't quit now.

And then there is the homland security: a bottomless pit for tax dollars, and endless cornucopa of profit for security consultants and security contractors alike. It also provides superb cover for generally tightening civilian discipline: instilling useful habits of anxious obedience in people who might otherwise question and criticize.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» YES! but more: Posted by: ibemee
"The Terrorists are Winning -- Vote Progressive"
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Feb 21, 2007 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as 'our' writers keep repeating the tropes: "Al Qaeda threatens us" (like Robert Perry in this article) and "We support the troops" (like Randi Rhodes on Air America ... it really doesn't matter whether we vote Republicrat or Demikin ... whoever is elected will be required to 'keep us safe' with budget busting, liberty destroying Defense and Homeland Security establishments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes ... I heard the show Posted by: AdamSelene40
Once Upon a Time...
Posted by: pcushniesr on Feb 21, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George Bush sits at his desk in the Oval Office, squinting and scratching his head as he tries to read reports containing words of more that one syllable. Suddenly the door swings violently open and crashes against the wall. Enter the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, all in full uniform, medals and ribbons ablaze in a riot of color and shapes. Following behind are military policeman from each branch of the military, all spit and polish. Then come members of the Secret Service, wearing their traditional somber black suits, curly wires dangling from their ears as ethereal voices speak in their heads. They are followed by the entire membership of SCOTUS, each one wearing the official robe of office. In the hallway outside the office are more people, familiar faces from both houses of Congress, both sides of the aisle. No one is smiling. Absolutely no one is smiling. Bush looks around with an idiot’s expression on his face (actually grateful for being taken away from the intel report with the big words that he cannot understand). A noise from outside the building momentarily draws his attention to one of the office windows. On the grounds below, he sees hundreds-- no, thousands-- no, make that millions-- oh, hell, people beyond counting-- carrying torches and shouting, “Burn the monster! Burn the Monster!” A general steps forward and brings Bush’s attention, such as it is, back to the people in the tightly-packed room. The general says, “George W. Bush, you are hereby placed under arrest, along with you entire criminal cabal, to answer for your crimes against the Nation and its people, crimes against humanity and the English language. You will be publicly hung until you are dead and your body left to rot...”

And then I awake. Oh, damn! I try desperately to regain sleep and pick up the wonderful dream again. I so much want to see the public hanging, but sleep and the dream elude me. Daylight presses against the windows of my room and I get out of bed to make coffee. I burn the toast and the smell is like that of burning torches.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Once Upon a Time... Posted by: Lauren
Pride, Greed, and Stubborness
Posted by: Rathan47 on Feb 21, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looks like all three are in full force with George...

Hey, this also isn't the right article to post this in, but since the latest 9/11 articles no longer accepts posts, I'm putting it here anyway. Someone called for a debate in the last article, and I thought that was a great idea. So I opened up a blog that is just for that purpose, to debate 9/11. And I mean cleanly debate. I want to look at a single issue each week and present as much of both sides as possible. All information must be referenced. Anyway, I won't go on too long here...

If you're interested, check it out:

http://911debate.wordpress.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shouldn't That Be...
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 21, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Past Tense, as in Bush has screwed up the GWT?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The revolution of 2012
Posted by: solrev on Feb 21, 2007 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is sad that Americans do not understand the Muslim revolution in the Middle East. We are so tangled up in terrorist propaganda; Arab versus Persian or Sunni versus Shia propaganda that we fail to understand the people. With a little understanding of the Muslim revolution, everything that has happened in Iraq was predictable. Everything we do in the Middle East ends up supporting the revolutionaries; American foreign policy is designed to have the opposite effect. We need to stop taking sides in the revolution because the nonhumans and their puppets say it is in their best interest. It is in the best interest of we the people of America to get out of the Middle East and let them have their revolution. It is in the best interest of we the people of the Middle East to win that revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The revolution of 2012 Posted by: Basenjis
Huh?
Posted by: Wacre on Feb 21, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Help me understand why people buy into the this whole "War On Terror" paradigm? It is as nonsensical as the actions of our president (not saying too much, I know) and goes a long way toward validating his actions.

A true "War On Terror"-- as an aside, notice how we always seem to have to have a 'War' on something. A war on this, a war on that. The only thing any of these 'wars' seem to have in common is that, to varying degrees, they don't work -- would be focusing on things like the disparity of wealth between the rich and the middle classes; focusing on helping the poor, as opposed to scapegoating them; making the corportation subservient to the will of people, instead of the other way around; making the economy serve a majority of the people, instead of the scions of Wall Street, etc.

There is no "War On Terror". In fact the very idea is nonsense. How do you have a war on an idea? This is just simply another method of transfering wealth from those that have least to those that have more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rule through Chaos
Posted by: jjz999 on Feb 21, 2007 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq is a screaming success for Bush. He's just applied his 'man of peace' Sharon's 'rule through chaos' of suppressing the population that you are stealing from. More important than immiserating the victims, the occupation aggressively promotes ethnic, sectarian, racial ,and confessional violence among the victim population. That was the purpose of green-lighting the Israeli attack, as one Israeli general put it, to bomb Lebanon back 2 decades, in order to encourage other Lebanese to start a civil war with the Hezbollah, which arose 3 years into the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as freedom fighters that eventually forced the Israeli withdrawal. In hopes of turning other southern Lebanese against Hezbollah, in the last couple of days of it's terror campaign, the Israelis plastered the populated areas and the agricultural fields with cluster bombs. Since a good percentage of cluster bombs don't explode on contact, the Israelis were just planting mine fields around the homes of the people and the land they grew their crops to survive.

Bush again applied the 'rule through chaos' when a group brought peace to Somalia by defeating the war lords that drove the US out of Somalia after Blackhawk Down. Through US air strikes and bribing the Ethiopian dictator to invade, chaos was restored and the bickering war lords were restored to power.

The same occurred in Afghanistan, when, according to Woodward's book, Bush was overjoyed when it only cost the US $70 million to bribe the drug lords that the Taliban had closed down to fight the Taliban. Now the jostling warlords are back and have restored Afghanistan as the supplier of 90% of the world's heroin supply. Bush also paid them bounties that the US flyers dropped throughout Afghanistan said would make them rich to fill-up Bush's PR stunt at 'law-free' Gitmo. Bush has done everything he could to avoid public trials for the Gitmo victims because the only evidence Bush has against them are confessions obtained through torture.

In Iran, Bush has sent in special op troops to carry out joint terrorist operations with a group that the US has designated a terrorist organization inside Iran and pinpoint targets for air strikes like power, water and sewage treatment plants, hospitals and other civilian infrastructure targets. Pacifica has reported that the bunker buster nukes don't work because they are only capable of penetrating 100-200 feet of dirt.

The real goal is to control the oil of the Mideast. As for Iraq, since Bremer's rule, the US is pushing it's puppet government to legally privatize Iraq oil to the vast benefit of private oil companies. Almost all other developing countries own their own natural resources. The current itteration puts oil company representives on the board to run Iraqi oil. Former itterations that explicitly gave oil cxompanies 40 year contracts at twice as favorable terms as what the oil companies were able to get elsewhere. A fragmented Iraq would only add to the leverage of the oil companies.

Oil is the only thing that matters to Bush in Iraq. The US troops will be in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East wil be there forever to protect US corporate interests. It's blood for oil. It's the Raygun/Bush squared program of the upward redistribution of wealth and income to the top 1% richest Americans.

But this has always been the role of the US military. To paraphrase what Marine Gen. Smedley Butler said of the first half of the 20th century, war is a racket of the US corporations and the military are just the enforcers for the Al Capones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush Doctrine a Total Disaster
Posted by: Peacemaker on Feb 21, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush Doctrine of preemption is a total disaster. President Bush keeps saying we've got to fight the terrorists overseas, so we don't have to face them here at home again. And he goes on to say that if we were to leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy would follow us home. Those assertions, along with the terrorists are out to get us because they hate freedom, are overly simplistic.

Terrorism can exist in every country in the world. Is it realistic to believe we can hunt down and kill every single terrorist on their turf so we won't have to fight them on our homeland? Is it really possible to keep all terrorists out of our country and to prevent acts of terrorism from occurring here? How will we know we got the job done in Iraq so the enemy won't follow us home?

The Iraq debacle has created many more anti-U.S. terrorists. They can continue to wreak havoc on our country without ever setting foot on the homeland. It was unwise and very foolish to invade and occupy Iraq and get America entangled in the seemingly everlasting "eye for an eye" cycle of violence that prevails in the Middle East. We are paying big-time in human lives and money for our colossal blunder. We were wrong in thinking our mighty "shock and awe" military machine would make our country and the rest of the world more secure.

The terrorism scourge did not evolve overnight or rise out of a vacuum. There are reasons why terrorism exists. I don't know what all of them are, but I do not believe terrorism exists simply because terrorists hate freedom. We need to learn the causes of terrorism and find ways to remedy its effects, or make things right. The future of the world is at stake in the land where civilization began--between Iraq's Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Certifibably Pathological
Posted by: kgs1947 on Feb 21, 2007 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Impeach the idiot! Bush is certifiably pathological. The only way we are going to have peace, regain our ethical reputation, and create a path toward justice is by impeaching the Bush Administration, starting with Little George. Not only is he a alcoholic who is NOT in recovery, he is pathologically ill. Check your DSM IV.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Certifibably Pathological Posted by: imntacrook
Opening statement a false premise
Posted by: rwa on Feb 21, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al-Qaeda's resurgence in new Pakistani strongholds is the latest sign

This is simply propaganda based on annonymous "U.S. official sources. How foolish are we? Does the writer even present the fact that this is a contested allegation?



ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan has dismissed "absurd" US claims that Al-Qaeda has established compounds in a remote tribal area to train small groups of operatives for possible attacks on the West.

A US official who spoke on condition of anonymity said Monday that compounds training 10 or 20 people at a time had been detected over the past year in a semi-autonomous tribal area along the mountainous border with Afghanistan.


But Pakistan foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam angrily rejected the allegations, the latest in a series to trouble Washington's relations with its key ally in the "war on terror."

"This is an absurd report and we dismiss it," Aslam told AFP on Tuesday...

Pakistan military spokesman Major General Shaukat Sultan said that the report deserved no response, as the government had answered similar questions during a media trip to the North Waziristan tribal area at the weekend.

"You are bombarding us with the same question again and again and we have given our point of view," Sultan said...


yahoo.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The war on terror is bogus.
Posted by: sonex on Feb 21, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More disinformation from AlterNet, the war on terror is a farce, so we are to debate who is best qualified to wage this make believe war on terror, give us a break...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush is a bungler, because he does not care.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 21, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush, the hood ornament, and Cheney, the real driver of the Limo of State, have screwed up the war on terror because they do not care about the war on terror. They used the terrorist act of 9/11 (I won't comment here about their involvement in it) as an excuse to secure Middle East oil and to replace a Taliban/Argentina contract to build pipelines from the Caspian Sea oil and gas fields to a western Pacific Ocean port (read Greg Palast for more on this). In short, the "war on terror" by the Bush crime cabal is a coverup for stealing resources. As usual, it is about OIL and empire, and nothing more.

Don't get me wrong; there is a war on terror, because a great deal of the terror is based as much upon our imperialistic reach into muslim territory as it is upon clashing ideologies (example: Osama Bin Laden was infuriated that we had built a permanent, ENORMOUS, military base in Ryadh and were flaunting our western ways in one of Islam's holiest cities).

As usual, consistant with one of the sadder aspects of human history, the "war" is about treasure, empire, and greed. There are better ways to fight terrorism – such as cutting its roots by improving people's economic future while respecting their beliefs – than simply killing them in head-to-head battle, and then collecting our plunder. Sure, there are a small number of terrorists out there to whom reason and cooperation mean nothing; but by acting like pirates, we are merely adding fuel to their fire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is part of the propaganda effort to make the "war on terror" seem real
Posted by: rwa on Feb 21, 2007 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But Americans are catching on as the article below shows:

Audit: Anti-terror case data flawed
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

Federal prosecutors counted immigration violations, marriage fraud and drug trafficking among anti-terror cases in the four years after 9/11 even though no evidence linked them to terror activity, a Justice Department audit said Tuesday.


Overall, nearly all of the terrorism-related statistics on investigations, referrals and cases examined by department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine were either diminished or inflated. Only two of 26 sets of department data reported between 2001 and 2005 were accurate, the audit found.

Responding, a Justice spokesman pointed to figures showing that prosecutors in the department's headquarters for the most part either accurately or underreported their data — underscoring what he called efforts to avoid pumping up federal terror statistics.

The numbers, used to monitor the department's progress in battling terrorists, are reported to Congress and the public and help, in part, shape the department's budget.

"For these and other reasons, it is essential that the department report accurate terrorism-related statistics," the audit concluded.

Fine's office took care to say the flawed data appear to be the result of "decentralized and haphazard" methods of collection or disagreement over how the numbers are reported, and do not appear to be intentional.

Still, the errors led Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., to question whether the department had exaggerated the number of terror cases.

"If the Department of Justice can't even get their own books in order, how are we supposed to have any confidence they are doing the job they should be?" said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the department. "Whether this is just an accounting error or an attempt to pad terror prosecution statistics for some other reason, the Department of Justice of all places should be classifying cases for what they are, not what they want us to think them to be."



...Much of the problem stemmed from how that office defines anti-terrorism cases.

A November 2001 federal crackdown on security breaches at airports, for example, yielded arrests on immigration and false document charges, but no evidence of terrorist activity. Nonetheless, the attorneys' office lumped them in with other anti-terror cases since they were investigated by federal Joint Terrorism Task Forces or with other counterterror measures.

Other examples, according to the audit, included:

_Charges against a marriage-broker for being paid to arrange six fraudulent marriages between Tunisians and U.S. citizens.

_Prosecution of a Mexican citizen who falsely identified himself as another person in a passport application.

_Charges against a suspect for dealing firearms without a license. The prosecutor handling the case told auditors it should not have been labeled as anti-terrorism.

"We do not agree that law enforcement efforts such as these should be counted as anti-terrorism," the audit concluded. Even if those cases were not taken into account, the audit said, the U.S. attorneys' office had overstated statistics in all other categories it reported.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I am saving it Posted by: rwa
» See below.... Posted by: Prophit
» RE: See below.... Posted by: rwa
retired military
Posted by: theonopolis on Feb 21, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WAIT-AND-SEE, is the way many are viewing this thing about GWB regarding the remainder of his term. With the problems that he has has caused our country thus far, I have a simple, but rather straight-forward approach which requires a gutsy Congress to enact. Without a long outdrawn rehash of the things we already know about the man and his administration, on the grounds of international law .. and the laws he has caused to be broken due to his lies and invasion of a sovereign land. With that alone being the starting point, strip that man and his VEEP of all further powers to govern any affairs of our nation, and then turn the two of them over to the Hague to be sentenced accordingly under international law, never mind the outcry that they are Americans --- so were the ones whose lives were wasted based on their phony reasons for war in Iraq. A needless and senseless war which has become a living nightmare of violence which extends back to the intervention based on his decision to invade on premature grounds, which has placed that country since then in a perilous position split by sectarian violence, genocide, national strife of every known kind which has reached a state of instability that can no longer be contained. A governing body which cannot venture too far outside for fear of their personal safety, nor are they overly anxious to be puppets for the WH, a country in chaos lapsed into limbo. A country that GWB and his administrators have ruined... and thousands of innocent Iraqis that have been exposed to death or injury because this president chose to ignore the sanctions of the UN and other members of the international community and falsely chose to play god in an instance where so many lives were at stake ... inexcuseable for a world leader.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a sure-fire way to get Cheney/Bush out
Posted by: kellysgarden on Feb 21, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of office would be to re-open the 9/11 Commission to expose their complicity in those attacks. 9/11 was nothing more than a false-flag op to enable Cheney/Bush to justify the oil wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now soon to include Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Fake Lefty Column on Bush's War on Terror.
Posted by: BillDouglas on Feb 21, 2007 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The so called "left" in America is duped or worse regarding the war on terror. Carl Bernstein (All the Presidents Men) in an article for Rolling Stone wrote that about 500 mainstream US media were on the CIA payroll.

It would be utterly naive to believe that they don't have lackies in "lefty" media. The pathetic hit pieces on 9/11 truth seekers by so called "lefty" media . . . shows a disturbing likely infiltration.

Articles like this one, that pretend that 9/11 was not an inside job by people within our own government, bend your mind exactly in the way 9/11 was intended to. To prep you for a permanent war economy, where our treasure is squandered to defend oil companies profits, rather than to create a clean energy economy.

Without 9/11, America would be focusing on educating our children, creating a green economy, lessening global poverty, etc. If you believe those who are running America want those things to happen, you need therapy. In months leading up to the Iraq war 96% of the talking heads on network news were pro-war. Only 4% were skeptical or opposed (Fair Media). So, we now know corporate media is infiltrated and cowed.

Now it is time to look at our precious "lefty" media, which I have read and supported for years. But, after their participation in the attack on those seeking 9/11 truth, I will never trust the so called progressive media again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 -