Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Osama-bin-Laden’

Michael Scheuer and Glenn Beck Wish for Bin Laden to Destroy America

July 1st, 2009

A frame from the June 16th edition of This Modern World:

Ha that’s funny!  Because like even though some crazy conservatives might actually think that, they wouldn’t actually say it out loud, would they?

Michael Scheuer on Glenn Beck’s show last night:

Transcript:

Scheuer: The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it’s going to take a grass-roots, bottom-up pressure. Because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It’s an absurd situation again. Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

Beck: Which is why, I was thinking this weekend, if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now.

Why do conservatives hate America so much? Why do they think it must be destroyed before they can save it?

For a whole lot more of Michael Scheuer’s batshit crazy analysis, read this column he wrote for the Washington Post that ends with:

…The Republicans do not have the votes to stop Obama, and the world will not be safer for America because the president abandons interrogations to please his party’s left wing and the European pacifists it so admires. Both are incorrigibly anti-American, oppose the use of force in America’s defense and — like Obama — naively believe that the West’s Islamist foes can be sweet-talked into a future alive with the sound of kumbaya.

So if the above worst-case scenario ever comes to pass, Americans will have at least two things from which to take solace, even after the loss of major cities and tens of thousands of countrymen. First, they will know that their president believes that those losses are a small price to pay for stopping interrogations and making foreign peoples like us more. And second, they will see Osama bin Laden’s shy smile turn into a calm and beautiful God-is-Great grin.

Michael Scheuer is an ex CIA man and he worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.   He now works as a news analyst for CBS News.  I wonder how much longer he’ll have that job…

UPDATE:  Daily Show coverage of this story here.

Wanda Sykes vs. Rush Limbaugh

May 11th, 2009

Wanda Sykes at the National Correspondents dinner on Saturday night:

“Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails,” Sykes said.  “So you’re saying, ‘I hope America fails’, you’re, like, ‘I don’t care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq’.  He just wants the country to fail.  To me, that’s treason He’s not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying.  You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker.  But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight.”

Nicely done.  But then there’s this…

Sykes then said, “Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that?  He needs a good waterboarding, that’s what he needs.”

Does it cross a line separating good humor from Rush’s own dirty playground of hate-filled speech?  Yes…

I didn’t see any of it, but I read that Obama laughed, so now the wacked-out Limbaugh crowd hates Obama even more!  Their level of hatred was already off the chart, so not much more could be squeezed out of them anyway.  Overall I’d say not much harm was done.

Can Rush take a little of what he serves up on his hate radio show every day?  Stay tuned.

Deja Vu from the NIE

July 17th, 2007

Today’s story from the Associated Press sounds oddly familiar

The terrorist network Al-Qaida will likely leverage its contacts and capabilities in Iraq to mount an attack on U.S. soil, according to a new National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the United States.

I guess there’s a chance that Bush might even read this NEA report.  In it he’ll find that:

The report lays out a range of dangers — from al-Qaida to Lebanese Hezbollah to non-Muslim radical groups — that pose a “persistent and evolving threat” to the country over the next three years. As expected, however, the findings focus most of their attention on the gravest terror problem: Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network.

The new report echoed statements made by senior intelligence officials over the last year, including the assessment of spy agencies that the country is in a “heightened threat environment.” It also provided new details on their thinking and concerns.
 
For instance, the report says that worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have constrained al-Qaida’s ability to attack the U.S. again and convinced terror groups that U.S. soil is a tougher target.

But, the report quickly adds, analysts are concerned “that this level of international cooperation may wane as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge.”

So the message here is the same as it ever was:

This Modern World Bumper Sticker

Iraq – The Case for a Deadline on US Disengagement Makes Sense

May 13th, 2007

Opponents of setting a deadline for the withdrawal of major United States and Coalition combat forces from Iraq typically use some or all of the following arguments :

-         setting a deadline tells our enemies how long they need to hang on for victory – or, as neo-conservative William Kristol declares in an outraged tone every Sunday on ‘Fox News Sunday’ during the panel discussion: America’s “surrender day”;

-         we will have handed al-Qaida, who consider Iraq the major front in the war on America, total victory;

-         the al-Qaida terrorists will “follow” us home and we’ll be fighting them on our own streets instead of in Baghdad;

-         if we think the chaos and slaughter in Iraq is bad now, wait until we withdraw;

-         the meltdown in Iraq that’s sure to follow the withdrawal of US forces will engulf the Middle East in regional strife that we will be powerless to contain;

-         the US will lose its credibility and the world will no longer believe we have the stomach for war (that’s one of Vice-President Cheney’s favourites – he of the “other priorities” when he had an opportunity to serve during the Vietnam War);

-         the sacrifice of the troops who have fought and died or been seriously wounded will have been in vain;

-         we have a responsibility as the nation that invaded and occupied Iraq to see the mission through and leave Iraq, if not a shining beacon of democracy in the Mid-East, at least stable and functioning as a state.

To these points in turn I would respond thus:

-         setting a deadline above all else tells the world that we have no territorial designs on Iraq or on its resources, that there is a limit to our willingness to have our soldiers fight and die waiting for Iraq’s politicians to make the hard decisions that will make the country governable and able to function as a state, and that only Iraqis can solve their differences and come together as a nation; I would argue also that a phased, unhurried and orderly withdrawal from a country where we do not belong, that we should never have invaded in the first place, and which we have insisted all along we would not occupy indefinitely, is only “surrender” in the minds of ideologically blinded, muddleheaded political flacks such as Bill Kristol – oh, and the president and vice-president;

-         our invasion of Muslim Iraq with our largely Christian armed forces has furthered al-Qaida’s  aims and objectives in a way that few other actions by the US could have matched – so much so, that Osama bin Laden (OBL) must have thought his birthday had come early; it has bogged down and worn out the ground force component of our armed forces, divided us from traditional allies, inflamed anti-American  passions among Muslims throughout the Middle-East and stimulated recruitment for al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups;  the last thing al-Qaida wants us to do is leave Iraq, thus they try to goad us into staying by pretending that they will have driven us out – a line that resonates with Bush/Cheney and the GOP base;

-         the “follow us home” line which we hear so often from right-wing pundits, Bush, Cheney and even some, like Senator Joe Lieberman who I used to think had a brain, is hardly worthy of response given its absurdity;  they never actually explain how that would happen (would they charter a plane or six, maybe? hijack a ship and wade ashore on Myrtle Beach, perhaps? persuade some hapless State Department consular officer somewhere to issue non-immigrant visas to them en masse?) or show any recognition that al-Qaida-in-Iraq is a franchise of the main OBL-led organization, is rooted in Iraq itself and will have its hands full fighting for survival after we leave in a country which is 80% Shiite and Kurdish and where even the Sunni minority doesn’t buy into al-Qaida’s evil brand of extremist, fundamentalist Islamic fascism; 

-         the violence in Iraq may, indeed, get worse before it gets better once we depart Iraq, but that may happen anyway whether we leave in a year or five years; in any event, I go back to the argument that it must be for Iraqis to decide their future and that the presence of American military occupiers is as much a catalyst for violence as a positive force to quell it;

-         as for the possibility that the chaos will engulf the Middle-East, all the more reason for us to plan now for such a scenario by engaging our allies in the region as well as in Europe and reaching out diplomatically to Iran and Syria, neither of whom have any national interest in a regional conflict, to contain and limit the conflagration if it occurs;

-         the old canard about the world believing we don’t have the stomach for sustaining a war if we quit Iraq is a  figment of Cheney’s fevered imagination; we will be engaged in Afghanistan for many years to come (if the people there don’t rise up against us for killing so many civilians in air strikes or in undisciplined panic attacks by our troops) if anyone wants proof of our staying power; as for our credibility, we will have regained much in the eyes of the world if we withdraw from Iraq since almost nobody thought it made sense to go there in the first place;

-         I happen to hold the belief that the sacrifices of the members of our armed forces whenever and wherever it has been made, have never been in vain or wasted when we, as a nation, set them a mission that we thought was in the national interest; sometimes our country has been wrong or misguided, but the faithful and dedicated service of our servicemen and women will never be forgotten and will never have been wasted.

Finally, if we break it, it’ll be ours to fix – to paraphrase then Secretary of State Colin Powell’s pre-invasion warning to Bush.  This is by far the most compelling reason to stay in Iraq until some sort of stability and order can be imposed.  After all, our actions precipitated the chaos that followed the overthrow of the established order, introduced terrorist groups into the country, the car bombings, the sectarian murder and mayhem. How can we just up and leave?  Even I, a certified member of the 30% Club who bitterly opposed the madness of an Iraq invasion from the beginning, have a problem with that one.  Isn’t it our responsibility to see this thing through even if it takes five or ten years for the sakes of the people of Iraq?

I can only reiterate my belief that it is in the long term interests of Iraq and its people that we leave as soon as possible.  Al-Qaida has stoked the violence in Iraq but once they are deprived of the unifying element of a foreign occupier, I believe the people – Sunnis as well as Shiite and Kurds – will turn on them and destroy them.  Only if the Shiite politicians in Baghdad myopically fail to share power and the nation’s oil wealth with the Sunni minority will the latter be tempted into an unholy alliance with al-Qaida.

The US and its coalition of the lukewarm-willing have overthrown a tyrant and afforded the Iraqis an opportunity for a new beginning.  Major US ground forces should stay no more than another year. Beyond that, we should leave dedicated anti-terrorist forces, trainers and air/naval assets to assist the Iraqi armed forces and provide whatever other economic, diplomatic and other help we can to a friendly government. It is past time, however, for Iraqis themselves to determine Iraq’s future without the security blanket of the US Army and Marine Corps.

 

October Surprise for 2006

October 1st, 2006

So, here we are at the start of October and I am wondering what brainiac Karl Rove has planned for this year’s midterm elections. According to Newsmax.com, last month he promised political insiders an “October Surprise”.

He has made similar promises in the past. In 2004, he told Sean Hannity that he had a “few surprises”. Hmmm. So, what was this mastermind able to come up with?

I have only been able to come up with 2 items that are attributed to the ‘October Surprise’ of 2004. The first is the Osama Bin Laden video that was aired right before the elections. I don’t really buy that he was responsible for this, although it is quite possible that the tape had been sitting around the CIA, waiting for the right time to air. The second is an article written in the Washington Times that stated:

U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Wow.

I sure hope ‘Turd Blossom’ can figure out a way to top that.

Here are my current predictions of Karl Rove’s big October Surprise:

10. The announcement that the Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan. (No, wait, that already happened.)
9. Saddam Hussein (guilty verdict, implicates Clinton Administration)
8. An announcement that torture works and just saved over 10 million lives in Los Angeles, New York, and/or Chicago
7. A proposed tax cut of some sort (targeted at a specific demographic key to the elections)
6. A sudden drop in gas prices (until about mid November)
5. Bill Clinton is still having extramarital affairs (casting doubt on the moral integrity of Democrats)
4. Iran found to be planning an attack on US or Israel
3. Hugo Chavez is linked to narcotics trafficking and named on the FBI’s most wanted list
2.Osama Bin Laden (caught, dead, new video)
1. Nothing at all (just oe big ‘Psyche!’)

Ultimately, who knows what Turd Blossom will come up with.

A Rational President

September 27th, 2006

That title doesn’t apply to President Bush.  It’s the president of Pakistan I’m talking about.

I just watched Jon Stewart interview President Pervez Musharraf on The Daily Show.  You can watch the three parts here, here, and here.

One thing that struck me about Musharraf was that he has a much better grasp of the English language than our American president.  It’s like he actually thinks before he speaks.

The “Seat of Heat” question was:

Let’s say if there were an election held in Pakistan today and not clearly for you job, because you’re doing a wonderful job… for let’s say the mayoralty of Karachi or ombudsman or something, uh… and we put up two candidates:  George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden.  Be truthful.  Who would win a popular vote in Pakistan?

(laughter)

Musharraf replied:  “I think they’ll both lose miserably.”

(laughter and applause)

Who Are We Fighting and Why?

August 31st, 2005

Mr. War President speaks ad nauseum about the War on Terror being waged in Iraq and how we are there to fight the “terrorists” so we don’t have to fight them at home. But who are we fighting and why? Are they all terrorists? Sean Gonsalvez has some answers in his Tuesday column:

Most experts agree the insurgency is made up of mostly Iraqi Sunni Muslims and Baath Party loyalists.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies recently estimated there are about 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists fighting in Iraq (out of an estimated 40,000 insurgents and up to 200,000 native supporters).

Gonsalvez goes on to report why the insurgents are fighting

Council on Foreign Relations staff writer Lionel Beehner reports: ”Nationalism is… what motivates many of Iraq’s insurgents, many experts say. These include Iraqis who, after Saddam Hussein’s regime fell, were fired from their military or other government jobs but do not favor a return to Saddam Hussein’s secular form of Arab socialism.”

Most insurgents, Beehner writes, are Sunnis who fear a Shiite-led government, support a strong state run by Sunnis, and want U.S. forces out of Iraq.

No matter how many times Bush says it’s a War on Terror, it’s not. We are fighting a minority group of Iraqi nationalists that don’t want us there because they don’t like the government that is emerging as a result of our overthrow of Saddam. We are staying in the fight not for the altruistic reason espoused by the Administration-to spread Democracy. The draft of the Iraqi Constitution looks a lot like that of a Theocratic Islamic state, not a Democratic state. We continue to fight because Iraq has oil that we’d like to secure for ourselves. Bush admitted it yesterday when he said: “If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks; they’d seize oil fields to fund their ambitions; they could recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States and our coalition.” Okay so he said we have to keep it away from them. Read between the lines-That oil is ours!

Author: Brad Categories: Iraq Tags: , , , , , ,