Osama bin Laden Given Free Rein in Pakistan

It is widely believed that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind and key architect of the worst terrorist attack on American soil. The seventh anniversary of 9/11 comes around in a month and a half. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said on Saturday that there are no U.S. or other foreign military personnel on the hunt for Osama bin Laden in his nation, and none will be allowed in to search for the al-Qaeda leader.

An Associated Press account quotes Qureshi as saying, "Our government's policy is that our troops, paramilitary forces and our regular forces are deployed in sufficient numbers. They are capable of taking action there. And any foreign intrusion would be counterproductive. [Our] people will not accept it. Questions of sovereignty come in."

Nine days after the 9/11 attack, George W. Bush addressed a joint session of congress, "Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." He received rousing applause and near unanimous support of the American public by invoking the name of Osama bin Laden as the leader of al-Qaeda. Thus began the Bush's War on Terror...

One year later, the US was planning to invade Iraq, a country where al-Qaeda didn't exist, under the guise of Bush's war on terror. Since that time, Iraq has been thrown into disarray with sectarian violence, it has a sham of a puppet government, al-Qaeda has established itself in Iraq, the Taliban has gained strength in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden's operation is free to operate with impunity on the Afghani-Pakistani border. The one ally within Pakistan who may've assisted with the apprehension of bin Laden - Benazir Bhutto - was assassinated in December 2007.

US-Pakistani relations have been strained of late: US aircraft killed 11 Pakistani soldiers at a border post in June. US officials have said coalition aircraft dropped bombs during a clash with militants. Despite Pakistan's previous statements that it does not allow U.S. forces on its territory, villagers in the border region that is a haven for al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters have reported seeing U.S. drones fire missiles at suspected militant targets on several occasions in recent years.

Pakistan officials deny having any knowledge of bin Laden in their country (nudge, nudge, wink, wink!). He has seemingly vanished from the face of the Earth.

Read the entire AP article about Pakistan's refusal to allow US forces into the country here.

Read George W. Bush's address to the Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2001 here.


plez sez: the us brought sadaam hussein to justice for killing thousands of his own people. but the us can't seem to bring osama bin laden to justice for killing thousands of americans. isn't something wrong with this picture?

while us forces have been making the iraqi oil fields safe for pillaging by american oil companies, we have completely dropped the ball on dealing with the terrorists who brought the death of over 3,000 americans and the destruction of both world trade center towers (well, some think the us government had more to do with the destruction of the world trade center towers than al-qaeda). as Barack Obama has stated so eloquently, we have taken our eye off the ball by invading iraq.

if our military was at full strength, it wouldn't matter that pakistan didn't want us forces to search their countryside for bin laden.

george w. bush's foreign policy is a dismal failure: he has done nothing to raise the united states' standing among the world economy, the war on terror is a failure, the war in iraq is an illegal invasion based on lies, and we are no safer than the day that bush took office.

Quote of the Day - June 25, 2007

"My theme has been throughout this campaign that I'm the one with the experience, the knowledge and the judgment. So perhaps it may serve to enhance those credentials to make people understand that I've been to Pakistan, I know (President Pervez) Musharraf, I can pick up the phone and call him. I knew Benazir Bhutto."
- Senator John McCain, presumptive Republican presidential nominee, on December 27, 2007 after hearing that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Pakistan.

Senator McCain obviously forgot that he made this statement last December while in the hunt for his party's nomination, as he attempted to distance himself from a major gaffe by one of his chief advisers, Charlie Black, on yesterday. Black inadvertently spoke about the McCain strategy to take advantage of a terrorist attack, if one were to occur during this election cycle.

Charlie Black said that Benazir Bhutto’s killing was an “unfortunate event.” But, he argued, McCain’s “knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief." Asked if McCain would stand to benefit from a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied, “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him.”

What follows is a statement from the Obama campaign:

“Barack Obama welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe. The fact that John McCain’s top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a ‘big advantage’ for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al Qaeda,”

Read the entire New York Times article that calls John McCain's reaction to Charlie Black's comment in to question here.

Read the entire New Republic article on the McCain Camp comments here.


plez sez: okay... we're dealing with two issues here:
(1) john mccain is older than ronald reagan when he first ran: i'm in my mid-forties and i tend to forget things or my mind makes up new details around past events... i can only imagine what it would be like to be 72-years old and trying to remember every damn thing i've uttered on a daily basis over the past 12 months while engaged in a vigorous campaign to be president of the united states. in addition to being more than a little forgetful, mccain also has the uncanny ability to flip-flop his position while he's forgetting what he said; in my defense, i'm pretty consistent in my stances, so if i was for something last year, i'm more than likely still for it today. mccain has obviously forgotten that one of his campaign strategies was to take FULL ADVANTAGE of any terrorist activity to prove his chops as the next commander-in-chief (as he uttered after the bhutto assassination).

(2) a gaffe is when you inadvertently tell the truth: a show of hands here, who doesn't think that the mccain campaign would milk a terrorist attack on the united states for all that it was worth and claim that he is imminently more qualified than Barack Obama to handle any such event if he were in the white house? easier question: who wouldn't put it past the bush administration and the republicans to manufacture a terrorist attack in let's say mid-october (i.e. an october surprise) to scare the electorate into voting for the 72-year old mccain over the relatively inexperienced Barack Obama?

nothing surprises plezWorld these days and just to think we have about five months left before we get to elect our new president. i keep in mind that john mccain has only recently attempted to distance himself from george w. bush and his failed foreign policies: osama bin laden hasn't been captured in seven years after 9/11, the taliban is still alive and kicking in afghanistan, al-qaeda has grown in strength since the invasion of iraq, the basis to attack iraq was based on lies, etc. mccain speaks of years of experience, i argue that cheney & rumsfeld & powell had more experience than mccain, and we see the mess they got us into. and based on mccain's campaign staffer comments, it is obvious that mccain plans to capitalize on striking terroristic fear into the hearts of americans, similar to the tactics used by bush when he ran for reelection in 2004!

i'm voting for Barack Obama... let's give change a chance!

5 Years - 4,000 Dead

CNN reports that four U.S. soldiers died last night in a roadside bombing in Iraq. That brings the American toll in the 5-year-old war to 4,000 deaths. This number does not count the tens of thousands who have been maimed and seriously injured in combat. It does not count the tens of thousands who will suffer from their injuries for the rest of their lives.

Read the entire CNN article here.


plez sez: five years after invading a sovereign country that posed no threat to the united states, we have now lost more americans in battle than were lost in the september 11th attack (which incidently involved no iraqis terrorists). this is now the third longest war in the history of the united states behind the revolutionary war and the vietnam war. it is now known that cause for the war - weapons of mass destruction - do not exist, and never existed. it is now known that the bush administration knew that they would never find WMD.

al-qaeda took responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. when the war started, al-qaeda was operating in afghanistan and pakistan, yet we invaded iraq.

bill clinton was impeached for lying to congress about an illicit sexual encounter with a white house groupie. george w. bush has not even been investigated for lying to congress about the reasons why the united states invaded iraq... something is wrong with this picture.

Bhutto Assassination & War on Terror

Twice-serving Pakastani prime minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday evening as she left a political rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. The New York Times reports that she was apparently shot several times as she was riding in a car away from the rally and then the gunman detonated a bomb killing himself and at least 20 others, and injuring 50 more. Bhutto was at a political rally only two weeks before Pakistan was to hold elections where she was leading in the polls to return to the prime minister post again.

The assassination and accompanying violence has plunged this hotbed of extremist radical turmoil; President Pervez Musharraf will more than likely have to impose another state of emergency, leading to a clamp down by his former troops (he recently stepped down as the head of the military).

Read the entire New York Times article here.


plez sez: this morning, i had planned to settle down with some C-SPAN when the news broke about the apparent bhutto assassination (at the time, there was only the report of a suicide bomber at her rally), so i quickly flipped over to CNN for an update. by this time, it had been confirmed that she had been shot and a bomb had been detonated a few seconds later.

this is a sad day for the world: armed terrorists are continuing to wreak havoc in the middle east and this was another "in your face" to bush's failed war on terror. the american people were bamboozled into supporting the war in iraq under the guise of a war on terror... for the past four years, our troops have been bombing and terrorizing the WRONG PEOPLE! OSAMA BIN LADEN and his gang (al qaeda) are not in iraq, they are alive and well in afghanistan and pakistan. they have widespread support in these countries. BARACK OBAMA was castigated for his talk of sending troops into pakistan after bin laden if their government would do nothing when he becomes president... as evidenced by today's bombing, apparently, obama's intelligence is more reliable than george w. bush's!

bhutto had spoken out against the terrorists and extremists who had taken up residence in her country and was determined to eradicate them... her Fate was death. this entire region is without strong leadership and the america's presence is doing little to deter their stronghold. if these terrorist cells are not destroyed, it will only be a matter of time before we are threatened with another 9/11 with those pakistani nuclear weapons (yes, people, pakistan has nuclear weaons)! our presence in iraq is not the answer and it appears that we are four years too late to pakistan! we can only hope that the next administration can provide leadership in dealing with the terroristic threat of the middle east.

Obama Talks Tough on Terrorism

The New York Times reports that Senator Barack Obama gave a major speech on terrorism earlier today. In his speech Obama said that the United States should shift its focus from the war in Iraq to a fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He feels that the Pakistani government has not done enough to eradicate terrorism cells within its borders. He chided the Bush administration for rushing into war with Iraq, leaving the US more vulnerable to attack than before 9/11, and not pressuring the Pakistani government in rooting out Al-Qaeda in their country.

Obama said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act we will."

And he also indicted Congress for our present state of affairs: “Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war, giving the president the broad and open-ended authority he uses to this day. With that vote, Congress became coauthor of a catastrophic war. And we went off to fight on the wrong battlefield, with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create, and no plan for how to get out.”

Read the entire New York Times article here.

plez sez: the only downside of this speech was that it was Senator Obama rather than President Obama giving it! Obama has consistently spoken out against the War in Iraq since he's been in the Senate, and his assessment of the terrorism threat is right on. Al Qaeda (and Osama Bin Laden) have enjoyed safe haven in Afghanistan and Pakistan since 9/11, and neither country has done anything to bring them to justice for what happened on that fateful day. Instead of concentrating on a known threat, President Bush pushed his private agenda of removing Sadaam Hussein from power and basically gave comfort to our sworn enemies!

this speech will also go a long way to establishing Obama's foreign policy credentials, in light of the Hillary Clinton comments about his inexperience. to be honest, i like his "inexperience," it means that we'll get a new way of doing things in Washington, instead of the failed retread policies of the Bush and Clinton administrations!