February 19, 2007

Meanwhile, while we're squandering everything in Iraq....

Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda has never had anything but a very small presence in Iraq, yet the administration and it's lemmings constantly tell us that the only thing protecting us from al Qaeda attack is the fact that we're continuing to squander lives and resources in Iraq.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan where nowhere near the level of troops or attention was focused in order to then divert everything to a country with oil, bin Laden and al Qaeda is not only alive and well, but re-grouping and growing in strength and capability.

In response to this report on the resurgence of bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, Micael Scheuer said on "Countdown",
Scheuer: We've always oversestimated the damage we did to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the Taliban escaped intact and they have been rebuilding and re-equiping over the past five years.

Olberman: How did that happen? Did this administration declare they had done all they could do? They were saying they had them on the run and now they're back?

Scheuer: This is a strange administration. But we don't take the transnational threat seriously. We're pretty good at nation states, but on Al Qaeda, we still have a government, as a whole, both parties, that doesn't take this threat very seriously.

The idea that we're going to try to do with 40,000 troops in Afghanistan what the Soviets couldn't do with 150,000 troops, is a bit of madness.

Olberman: Given what the Republicans during the debate in the House last week that the insurgents would "follow us home" if we left Iraq, which battleground is actually more central to the war against terrorist?

Scheuer: The central place in terms of an attack inside the United States is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the next attack occurs in the United States, it will be planned and orchestrated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda values Iraq primarily for the entree it gives them into Jordan, into Syria, into the Arab peninsula, and into Turkey. We've really signed Jordan's death warrant through the war in Iraq. But actually, the people who will plan the next attack on the United States are those who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Olberman: Does this emergence of evidence that bin Laden and Zirarari are gaining strength, does it diminish the justification of the Administration looking over at Iran? Should we be shifting away from those countries and saying Al Qaeda, where they ARE, not where we want them to be, is where we need to look?

Scheuer: This administation seems to be afraid of anything that moves. Iraq was a containable country. The Iranians are not a threat to the United States. They may be a threat to Israel, but they're not a threat to the United States.

The threat to the United States inside the United States comes from Al Qaeda. They are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to address the threat to America, that's where it is.

So while they're demanding that more blood be spilled and billions squandered in destroying Iraq and destabilizing the entire middle east, while the real threat to our country goes largely unaddressed.

It's not the religious sects fighting each other in Iraq that will attack the U.S., it's the Al Qaeda in Pakistan. And Bush and the Republican war hawks seems to pay little or no attention to that fact.


At 2/20/2007 8:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard Olberman on the Dan Patrick show providing his great wisdom that a boxer banned for 11-years because he has HIV/ Aids - SHOULD be able to box and that anyone who would not fight him has an issue, "because there is so minimal of a chance of getting HIV through blood in a boxing ring."

What an idiot!
Talk about PC acceptance run amuck!

Here's an idea, how about Olberman climbing in the ring with this guy?

At 2/21/2007 1:33 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

First of all, this post isn't about Olberman and his opinion about a boxer.

Olberman simply asked the questions here. Why attack HIS credibility when it has nothing to do with the subject or the facts presented?

Second of all, what makes you think that there IS a great danger of contracting HIV during a boxing match? Are you up on the latest research?

Do you know if boxers are required to be tested and have a clean result?

Didn't think so.

And I'm sure that Olberman WOULD put himself where his mouth is, IF he were a boxer.

Unlike many mouthbreathing right wing trogs on cable and a.m., Olberman isn't prone to spouting stuff he just makes up as he goes along, such as O'Reilly saying that the young boy who was kidnapped and repeatedly sodomized near St. Louis stayed with his captor because he "liked it there" and was having more fun than he would at home.

At 2/22/2007 7:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On another PC front - thank goodness that pesky Chief Illini is now finished!

I am certain that the world will be a better place now - and likely loads more tolerant of Indians.

I am guessing that without the Chief, there is now one less reason to even think about Indians - so the rich heritage of the US Indian takes another hit on the road to oblivion.

As an Irish decedant, I am looking for the Notre Dame mascot to be next - how insulting to have my heritage mocked in a sporting event.

My sister once had a pet hawk that was almost like one of the family. I am also anguished over Herky the Hawk and the portrayal of hawks by the University of Iowa.

What are we going to do about these things!?

At 2/22/2007 1:06 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Let's take all the property owned by Irish and pack them off to some arid dessert reservation where they can be totally isolated, live in total squalor and deep poverty, and die from alchoholism and disease.

Hey, you don't seem to think the native americans were treated that bad. Why not?

Then of course, many decades later, we can try to make up for this by realizing that the mascot of Notre Dame is pretty stupid in light of what we'd done to the Irish.

At 2/27/2007 8:39 AM, Anonymous This land is our land said...

We need to realize that the dope is right. We treated the indians bad. We killed them and took their land. I do not get why he feels because we used these people that we can not use them more. If you feel so bad for the indians You should give them your land and your belongings and move back to Irland or england or wherever you came from.

Get off your high horse like you are going to make it all better.

This is America and we take what we want. Look at Iraq.

Not using thier heritage for our benefits is not going to make everything alright for them.

Give back what is theirs or quit faking injustice.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home