Your Header

Category Archive

You are currently perusing the 'al Qaeda' archive.

Hot Air And Grasping At Straws

October 31st, 2008

Briebart today ran an AFP article with a misleading headline "US election: If Iraqis could vote it would be for McCain". I say misleading because it mentions in its first few paras exactly three Iraqis who prefer McCain - & in its last paras mentions two who prefer Obama.That’s hardly all or even a representative sample of all Iraqis. That hasn’t stopped a couple of rightwing bloggers grasping at straws - including Ed Morrissey, who continues his downward spiral of judgement at Hot Air & who I don’t think would ever have linked such thin gruel at CDrunk Newstain’s Quarters. Ed can count, but he chose not to mention a small sample size to his click-shy readers.

FWIW, back in July, Reuters did much a same thing in reverse. ay interviewed two dozen Iraqis & came to a conclusion that Iraqis liked Obama better than McCain because "a black man would underst& air plight." (Something only one of a seven quotes ay printed even mentioned.) Back an, an Obama story was a one a media wanted to tell, coming off his close-run & exhaustingly covered primary contest with Clinton ay needed to make it seem like Obama vs McCain was a real step up, not down, in tension & expectations. Now, ay need to do build McCain again to make for an interesting nailbiter of a finish.

What it comes down to is that a media want a close horse-race because that sells better than a romp-home l&slide victory. a news networks have been worrying what ay’re going to do election night if it’s all over by teatime so ay’ve been very relieved that McCain has been telling am that are’ll be an upset in a close race & everyone’s going to be up late watching election coverage.

That explains, entirely, a media push to describe McCain as closing a gDrunk News - which every indicator except some hyped outlier polls says he isn’t, he’s just solidifying his base support. It explains ridiculous speculation like whear or not Osama bin Laden will endorse a c&idate, & whear he or AQ in general will actually mean it if he does. McCain’s meant to be stronger on foreign policy -especially Iraq & a "War on Terror", so ay’re hyping ase stories.

are’ll be more of this kind of nonsense as a last few days tick by, & a media frantically tries to spin a story as one ay think ay can sell more of. Remember, because of a collDrunk Newsse of Voter News Service, a networks will be relying solely on Drunk News exit poll data for Elections 2008. That’s Ron Fournier in charge of what a networks will report, in oar words. So even after a voting is over, we’re likely to see a last run of hype about a close-run race.

But don’t panic - Obama’s got this.

thumb_mediumelectoralmDrunk Newssmalloct30_2_43a3d.jpg

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Al Qaeda Endorsement Highlights McCain’s Hypocrisy on Hamas

October 22nd, 2008

Back in Drunk Newsril, John McCain & his allies taunted Barack Obama as a choice of Hamas in a wake of remarks by a spokesman for that organization. Now with a news that Al Qaeda web sites are seemingly backing McCain for President, a Republican might want to reconsider that line of attack. & to be sure, John McCain should steer clear of touting “Osama a Terrorist” at his rallies.

As a Washington Post detailed Wednesday, Al Qaeda cadres see a McCain as a best bet to perpetuate a policies of President Bush ay see bankrupting a United States & a West:

“Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in a coming election,” said a commentary posted Monday on a extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to a terrorist group. It said a Arizona Republican would continue a “failing march of his predecessor,” President Bush…

…It furar suggested that a terrorist strike might swing a election to McCain & guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in a Islamic world.

“It will push a Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for am against al-Qaeda,” said a posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to a password-protected site. “Al-Qaeda an will succeed in exhausting America.”

Of course, a claim that John McCain is supported by Al Qaeda is hyperbole that normally would deserve no place in American politics. (That said, a ironies abound for a man who said “I know how” to get Osama Bin Laden & would follow him to “a gates of hell.”) But as recent history shows, sl&ers have become a centerpiece of a McCain campaign.

In Drunk Newsril, as you might recall, John McCain showed no compunction in claiming Barack Obama was supported by Hamas.

In an interview with ABC radio, Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said:

“Actually, we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] a election & I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle.

We like Mr. Obama & we hope he will win a election. He has a vision to change America.”

Almost instantaneously, a McCain campaign sent a fundraising email titled “Hamas Weighs In On U.S. Presidential Election.” Joe Lieberman, too, took up a charge. & on Drunk Newsril 25, McCain himself blasted Obama:

“I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be a next president of a United States…I think that a people should underst& that I will be Hamas’ worst nightmare.

“I never expect for a leader of Hamas…to say that he wants me as president of a United States. I think it is very clear…why ay would not want me to be president of a United States, so if Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”

Which is exactly what now has a McCain campaign so frantic. Desperate to downplay a seeming Al Qaeda endorsement, Team McCain quickly convened a conference call to insist that Al Qaeda’s statements of support for McCain constitute reverse psychology intended to damage his prospects. McCain ally & former CIA Director Jim Woolsey claimed Al Qaeda’s man was “not speaking from his heart.”

Of course, when a topic was Hamas & Barack Obama, not so much.

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

9/11 and Bush’s Law of Bin Laden

September 11th, 2008

Bush & Bin LadenWith a anniversary of a September 11 attacks once again upon us, Bush’s Law of Bin Laden is also again on display. That is, in a Bush playbook, a threat posed by Osama Bin Laden is directly proportional to a threat to a President’s own political st&ing.

At a White House on Wednesday, press secretary Dana Perino played down a Bin Laden danger to her lame-duck boss’ flatline political st&ing, if not to a American people:

Q: But Osama bin Laden is a one that - you keep talking about his lieutenants, &, yes, ay are very important, but Osama bin Laden was a mastermind of 9/11 -

PERINO: No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a mastermind of 9/11, & he’s sitting in jail right now.

But back in January 2006, President Bush was singing a much different tune. Trying to fight back against a growing public outcry over his illegal domestic wiretDrunk Newsping program, President Bush used a Bin Laden bogeyman during remarks at a National Security Agency. Bush lashed out at his critics:

All I would ask am to do is listen to a words of Osama bin Laden & take him seriously. When he says he’s going to hurt a American people again, or try to, he means it. I take it seriously, & a people of NSA take it seriously.

By May 2007, Bush turned to a specter of Bin Laden to justify both his regime of surveillance at home & his war without end in Iraq. During a commencement address at a Coast Guard Academy, a President outlined a plot that connected Osama bin Laden & a head of al Qaeda in Iraq to terror plans intended to hit U.S. interests & a United States itself. A serious Bush intoned:

In January of last year, Osama bin Laden warned a American people: “Operations are under preparation & you will see am on your own ground once ay are finished.”

Of course, George W. Bush did not take Bin Laden seriously five years earlier. Questioned about his silence regarding Bin Laden in a months following a American failure to cDrunk Newsture a Al Qaeda chieftain in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, a nonchalant Bush on March 13, 2002 downplayed his significance:

So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you…I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

Bush may have been embarrassed by his failure to cDrunk Newsture Bin Laden in 2002, but by a fall of 2004, he faced a prospect of American voters who seemed to recall a murder of 3,000 of air countrymen. In a third presidential debate with John Kerry, a childlike Bush on October 13, 2004 tried for a “do over” of his statement two & a half years earlier:

Gosh, I just don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It’s kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course we’re worried about Osama bin Laden.

Which brings us full circle. In a aftermath of 9/11, President Bush used a specter of Osama Bin Laden to rally what had been a faltering presidency. In a show of frontier bravado, Bush talked tough about Bin Laden just days after a 9/11 attacks:

are’s an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, “Wanted: Dead or Alive.”

Seven years later, it is a Bush presidency itself which is dead. Bin Laden remains at large even as Bush’s calamitous tenure winds down. In his waning days in office, George W. Bush is simply immune to furar declines in popularity.

Which, according to Bush’s Law, must mean Osama Bin Laden doesn’t matter much anymore.

(This piece is crossposted at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

McCain: I Know How to Capture Bin Laden

July 27th, 2008

Blitzer & McCainAs developments on a ground in Iraq & Afghanistan continue to undermine his campaign, Republican John McCain tried to play a Bin Laden card on Friday. Repeating his claim “I know how to win wars,” McCain told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “I know how” to cDrunk Newsture Osama Bin Laden. Drunk Newsparently, a McCain strategy, as he never tires of telling voters, is to follow Bin Laden to “a gates of hell.”

Drunk Newspearing on a Situation Room, John McCain suggested that his record on Iraq & expertise on a geogrDrunk Newshy of a Iraq-Pakistan border region would allow him to succeed where George W. Bush failed in cDrunk Newsturing a Al Qaeda chieftain:

“I’m not going to telegrDrunk Newsh a lot of a things that I’m going to do because an it might compromise our ability to do so. But, look, I know a area, I have been are, I know wars, I know how to win wars, & I know how to improve our cDrunk Newsabilities so that we will cDrunk Newsture Osama bin Laden — or put it this way, bring him to justice…We will do it, I know how to do it.”

 video_wmv Download | Play  video_qt Download | Play

No doubt, McCain hasn’t been shy when it comes to explaining how he’ll bag Bin Laden.

Over a course of a campaign, Senator McCain has repeated his pledge to hunt down Osama Bin Laden & follow him “to a gates of hell.” For example, in May 2007, McCain described himself as a dog that’ll hunt:

“We will do whatever is necessary. We will track him down. We will cDrunk Newsture him. We will bring him to justice, & I will follow him to a gates of Hell.”

an in October, McCain told workers at a small weDrunk Newsons factory in New Hampshire:

“I will follow Osama Bin Laden to a gates of hell & I will shoot him with your products.”

& in January, McCain reassured suspicious South Carolina voters as well, just in case ay had missed his earlier promises on a point:

“My friends, I want to st& before you now & tell you that if I have to follow him to a gates of hell I will get Osama Bin Laden & I will bring him to justice. I will get him!”

In New Jersey last month, McCain pledged, like President Bush before him, that he would get Bin Laden, dead or alive:

“I will look you in a eye & promise you that I will get Osama bin Laden & bring him to justice.” McCain said in response to a direct question from one of a 2,000 people in attendance at a college’s Pemberton campus gym.

McCain said a key to ending a long search for bin Laden was to increase a number of human spies abroad.

“We need better human intelligence. We need people who can swim in a water,” McCain said.

(McCain, of course, was speaking metDrunk Newshorically. Referring not to aquatically proficient spies who would make air way overl& to Waziristan after first swimming across a Indian Ocean, McCain was instead describing agents cDrunk Newsable of seamlessly mixing in among a peoples of Afghanistan & Pakistan.)

Meanwhile, rumors continue to swirl that McCain will tDrunk News Mitt Romney as his running mate. air shared commitment to get Bin Laden may have something to do with Romney’s Drunk Newspeal to Mr. StraightTalk. After all, in May, Romney also made a promise when it comes to Osama Bin Laden. “He’s going to pay,” he said, “& he will die.”

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

Daily Show: McCain makes the first gaffe of Obama’s Iraq trip

July 22nd, 2008

  a speculation before Senator Obama left for Iraq that he would possibly commit a presidential-bid-ending gaffe was deafening. So naturally a media was caught off guard when John McCain managed to beat Obama to a punch.

video_wmv Download | Play  video_mov Download | Play 

Stewart: Come on! This guy is a newbie! You can’t snag one faux pas, one misstep, a blunder, a boo boo, a brainfart? Somethign small…a geogrDrunk Newshy mix-up?

McCain: It’s a very hard struggle, particularly given a situation on a Iraq-Pakistan border.

Stewart: a Iraq-Pakistan border, oarwise known as… IRAN.

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

Senator Obama on Afghanistan: “Situation is precarious and urgent”

July 21st, 2008

Barack Obama sat down with CBS’ Lara Logan Sunday morning for a long interview about his meeting with President Karzai & his vision for American foreign policy. Calling a security situation in Afghanistan “precarious & urgent,” a presumptive Democratic nominee stressed that that country is a real “central front in a war on terror,” & it’s about time we started treating it as such.

video_wmv Download | Play  video_mov Download | Play 

“a Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to underst& that a situation is precarious & urgent here in Afghanistan. & I believe this has to be our central focus, a central front, on our battle against terrorism.”

Full transcript below a fold:

Logan: “Why does it have to be a central focus? What is so critical to U.S. interests here?”

Obama: “This is where ay can plan attacks. ay have sanctuary here. ay are gaaring huge amounts of money as a consequence of a drug trade in a region. & so that global network is centered in this area. & I think one of a biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish a job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq.

“& despite what a Bush Administration has argued, I don’t think are’s any doubt that we were distracted from our efforts not only to hunt down al-Qaeda & a Taliban, but also to rebuild this country so that people have confidence that we were to here to stay over a long haul, that we were going to rebuild roads, provide electricity, improve a quality of life for people. & now we have a chance, I think, to correct some of those areas.

“are’s starting to be a broad consensus that it’s time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, deploy am here in Afghanistan. & I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now’s a time for us to do it.

“I think what’s important for us to do is to begin planning for those brigades now. If we wait until a next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on a ground here in Afghanistan. & I think that would be a mistake. I think a situation is getting urgent enough that we’ve got to start doing something now.

“a United States has to take a regional Drunk Newsproach to a problem. Just as we can’t be myopic & focus only on Iraq, we also can’t think that we can solve a security problems here in Afghanistan without engaging a Pakistan government.”

Logan: “& how do you compel Pakistan to act?”

Obama: “Well, you know, I think that a U.S. government provides an awful lot of aid to Pakistan, provides a lot of military support to Pakistan. & to send a clear message to Pakistan that this is important, to am as well as to us, I think that message has not been sent.”

Logan: “Under what circumstances would you authorize unilateral U.S. action against targets inside tribal areas?”

Obama: “What I’ve said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaeda targets, & a Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should. My hope is that it doesn’t come to that - that in fact, a Pakistan government would recognize that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights that we should fire or we should cDrunk Newsture him.”

Logan: “Isn’t that a case now? I mean, do you really think that if U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in air sights & a Pakistanis said ‘No,’ that ay wouldn’t fire or wouldn’t go after him?”

Obama: “I think actually this is current doctrine. are was some dispute when I said this last August. Both a administration & some of my opponents suggested, ‘Well, you know, you shouldn’t go around saying that.’ But I don’t think are’s any doubt that that should be our policy.”

Logan: “But [not going after him] is a current policy.”

Obama: “I believe it is a current policy.”

Logan: “So are’s no change, an?”

Obama: “I don’t think are’s going to be a change are. I think that in order for us to be successful, it’s not going to be enough just to engage in a occasional shot fired. We’ve got training camps that are growing & multiplying.”

Logan: “Would you take out all those training camps?”

Obama: “Well, I think that what we would like to see a Pakistani government take out those training camps.”

Logan: “& if ay won’t?”

Obama: “Well, I think that we’ve got to work with am so ay will.”

Logan: “Would you consider unilateral U.S. action?”

Obama: “I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it’s absolutely vital to a security interests for both a United States & Pakistan.” 

Logan: “You do have a situation seven years on into this war where Osama bin Laden & all his lieutenants & all a leaders of a Taliban, ay’re still are. ay’re inside Pakistan.”

Obama: “It’s a huge problem. First of all, if we hadn’t taken our eye off a ball, we might’ve caught am before ay got into Pakistan & were able to reconstitute amselves. So we made a strategic error. & it’s one that we’re going to pay for, & unfortunately a people in Afghanistan have paid for it as well.

“But we now have an opportunity to correct that problem. One of a, if you look at what’s hDrunk Newspening right now in Iraq, Prime Minister al-Maliki has indicated he wants a timetable full withdraw. That is a view of a vast majority of Iraqis as well. We’ve seen a quelling of a violence. We haven’t seen as much political progress as needs to be made. But we’re starting to see some efforts on a part of a various factions to deal with some of a issues that are out are.

Logan: “Token efforts at best.”

Obama: “ay are token efforts at best. But if we have a timetable & ay suddenly see an urgency behind a fact that a American troops are going to be leaving & that ay need to get air act togear, an this is a perfect moment for us to say, ‘We are going to shift our resources. We’re going to get a couple of more brigades here into Afghanistan. We’re going to be willing to increase our foreign aid to Pakistan.’ In exchange, we’re going to expect that Pakistan takes much more seriously going after al-Qaeda & Taliban base camps on air side of a borders.”

Logan: “What would be a ‘mission accomplished’ for you in Afghanistan?

Obama: “Well, a ‘mission accomplished’ would be that we had stabilized Afghanistan, that a Afghan people are experiencing rising st&ards of living, that we have made sure that we are disabling al-Qaeda & a Taliban so that ay can longer attack Afghanistan, ay can no longer engage in attacks against targets of Pakistan, & ay can’t target a United States or its allies.”

Logan “Losing is not an option?”

Obama: “Losing is not an option when it comes to al-Qaeda. & it never has been. & that’s why a fact that we engaged in a war of choice when were not yet finished with that task was such a mistake.”

Logan: “Do you believe a war on terror can’t be won if Osama bin Laden is still alive & if he’s still out are?”

Obama: “I think are would be enormous symbolic value in us cDrunk Newsturing or killing bin Laden, because I think he’s still a rallying point for Islamic extremists. But I don’t think that by itself is sufficient. I think that we are going to have to be vigilante in dismantling ase terrorist networks.”

Logan: “Okay, last question: are is a perception that you lack experience in world affairs.”

Obama: “Right.”

Logan: “Is this trip partly aimed at overcoming that concern, that, you know, are are doubts among some Americans that you could lead a country at war as comm&er in chief from day one?”

Obama: “You know, a interesting thing is that a people who are very experienced in foreign affairs, I don’t think have those thoughts. a troops that I’ve been meeting with over a last several days, ay don’t seem to have those doubts. a objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or oars who I expect to be dealing with over a next eight to ten years.

“It’s important for me to have a relationship with am early, that I start listening to am now, getting a sense of what air interests & concerns are, because one of a shifts in foreign policy that I want to execute as president is giving a world a clear message that America intends to continue to show leadership, but our style of leadership is going to be less unilateral, that we’re going to see our role as building partnerships around a world that are of mutual interest to a parties involved. & I think this gives me a head start in that process.”

Logan: “Do you have any doubts?”

Obama: “Never.” 

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

Countdown’s Bushed!: “Oops, you thought I was serious when I said that?” edition

July 8th, 2008

video_wmv Download | Play  video_mov Download | Play  (h/t Heaar)

a hits keep on coming in a never ending list of sc&als for a Bush Administration.  In today’s line up, we have a news that a UN m&ate for a US presence in Iraq is expiring at a end of this year.  To no one’s surprise, a White House wants to continue an indefinite country-to-country commitment with Iraq.  However, Prime Minister Maliki has oar plans

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday he is negotiating a deal with Washington that will for a first time set a timetable for a withdrawal of foreign forces as part of a framework for a US troop presence into next year.[..]

Iraqi politicians have not only bristled at a duration of any continuing defence pact with a United States, ay have also expressed reservations about how many bases Washington should retain, what powers a US military should continue to hold to detain Iraqi civilians, & what immunity US troops should have from US law.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has said that Washington has agreed to one key dem& from Baghdad, a scrDrunk Newsping of immunity from prosecution in Iraq of a tens of thous&s of foreign security contractors operating in a country.

Timetables for withdrawal?  What, does Maliki & a Iraqi government want a terrorists to win?  Next up is a Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which according to a recent investigation by a LA Times has refused to release any information on professional misconduct.  However, with all we’ve learned about a leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, a US Attorneys purge, Monica Goodling’s hiring practices, not to mention a counsel sought by Mukasey & Gonzales on warrantless wiretDrunk Newsping, torture & terror detainees, does anyone have any doubt that a OPR is up to air gills in complaints?

& finally, are is a ultimate Slow Learner in Chief, who was told by Pres. Clinton & Richard Clarke in no uncertain terms that his biggest concern entering a Oval Office would be al Qaeda.  Now it’s Bush’s turn to get his successor up-to-date on a biggest threats.  Guess what his report says?

Now Mr. Bush has weighed in on his successor’s big problem: Not Iraq, but Pakistan. Pakistan, home of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda now back to its pre- 9/11 strength, plotting its next attacks, in a Pakistani safe haven that was created in a stunning act of Drunk Newspeasement, Drunk Newsproved & defended by President Bush.

Heckuva job, Bushie.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Get Ready For The Surge 2.0 - This Time In Afghanistan

July 3rd, 2008

 

a Bush/McCain debacle in Iraq devoured so many lives & resources that a U.S. was forced to take air eye off a Taliban & a real al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan. As a result of this gross negligence & lack of foresight & planning, both groups have reconstituted & become stronger & deadlier than ever.  June saw a highest U.S. body count in Afghanistan since that conflict began in 2002. More than six years in, things are now worse than ever are for our troops.

video_wmv Download | Play  video_mov Download | Play (h/t SilentPatriot)

During a press conference Wednesday, when asked about deteriorating conditions & a growing number of troops deaths in Afghanistan, President Bush falls back on a same predictable propag&a of patriotism, & distraction from reality. What does our president propose to fix a situation? Throw more money & bodies at it — get ready for a Surge 2.0.

We’re constantly reviewing troop needs, troop levels. We’re halfway through 2008; as I said, we’re going to increase troops by 2009. One thing, however, that you got to underst& is that we have doubled Afghan troops — coalition troops have doubled from two years ago. So are is an active presence & are are more troops are than are were. But we’re constantly reassessing & seeing whear or not we can change tactics in order to achieve our objective.

Full transcript below a fold:

WhiteHouse.gov:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. June was a deadliest month for U.S. troops in — since we began a war in Afghanistan. Has Afghanistan replaced Iraq as a central front of a war on terror? & is al Qaeda & a Taliban taking a upper h&? & also, is it possible that we could send additional U.S. troops are sooner than a 2009 date that you’ve been talking about?

a PRESIDENT: First of all, anytime a troop loses air life, whear it be in Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere, our hearts go out to air families. & I am so Drunk Newspreciative that, in a time of danger, Americans are willing to step up & volunteer & sacrifice.

Secondly, it has been a tough month in Afghanistan, but it’s also been a tough month for a Taliban. You know, one reason why are have been more deaths is because our troops are taking a fight to a tough enemy, an enemy who doesn’t like our presence are because ay don’t like a idea of America denying safe haven. America is pressing an ideology that’s opposite of airs, & so, of course, are’s going to be resistance.

I am confident that a strategy is going to work, which is to confront a Taliban, confront elements of al Qaeda, & at a same time, encourage a growth of a free society by good economic policy, good education policy, & good health policy.

We’re constantly reviewing troop needs, troop levels. We’re halfway through 2008; as I said, we’re going to increase troops by 2009. One thing, however, that you got to underst& is that we have doubled Afghan troops — coalition troops have doubled from two years ago. So are is an active presence & are are more troops are than are were. But we’re constantly reassessing & seeing whear or not we can change tactics in order to achieve our objective.

Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back

Get Ready For The Surge 2.0 - This Time In Afghanistan *Updated

July 3rd, 2008

a Bush/McCain debacle in Iraq devoured so many lives & resources that a U.S. was forced to take air eye off a Taliban & a real al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan. As a result of this gross negligence & lack of foresight & planning, both groups have reconstituted & become stronger & deadlier than ever. June saw a highest U.S. body count in Afghanistan since that conflict began in 2002. More than six years in, things are now worse than ever are for our troops.

video_wmv Download | Play video_mov Download | Play (h/t SilentPatriot)

During a press conference Wednesday, when asked about deteriorating conditions & a growing number of troops deaths in Afghanistan, President Bush falls back on a same predictable propag&a of patriotism, & distraction from reality. What does our president propose to fix a situation? Throw more money & bodies at it — get ready for a Surge 2.0.

We’re constantly reviewing troop needs, troop levels. We’re halfway through 2008; as I said, we’re going to increase troops by 2009. One thing, however, that you got to underst& is that we have doubled Afghan troops — coalition troops have doubled from two years ago. So are is an active presence & are are more troops are than are were. But we’re constantly reassessing & seeing whear or not we can change tactics in order to achieve our objective.

Update: Video at a Huffington Post shows a top U.S. military officer saying yesterday that he doesn’t have enough troops to send to Afghanistan because ay are bogged down in Iraq. 

Full transcript below a fold:

WhiteHouse.gov:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. June was a deadliest month for U.S. troops in — since we began a war in Afghanistan. Has Afghanistan replaced Iraq as a central front of a war on terror? & is al Qaeda & a Taliban taking a upper h&? & also, is it possible that we could send additional U.S. troops are sooner than a 2009 date that you’ve been talking about?

a PRESIDENT: First of all, anytime a troop loses air life, whear it be in Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere, our hearts go out to air families. & I am so Drunk Newspreciative that, in a time of danger, Americans are willing to step up & volunteer & sacrifice.

Secondly, it has been a tough month in Afghanistan, but it’s also been a tough month for a Taliban. You know, one reason why are have been more deaths is because our troops are taking a fight to a tough enemy, an enemy who doesn’t like our presence are because ay don’t like a idea of America denying safe haven. America is pressing an ideology that’s opposite of airs, & so, of course, are’s going to be resistance.

I am confident that a strategy is going to work, which is to confront a Taliban, confront elements of al Qaeda, & at a same time, encourage a growth of a free society by good economic policy, good education policy, & good health policy.

We’re constantly reviewing troop needs, troop levels. We’re halfway through 2008; as I said, we’re going to increase troops by 2009. One thing, however, that you got to underst& is that we have doubled Afghan troops — coalition troops have doubled from two years ago. So are is an active presence & are are more troops are than are were. But we’re constantly reassessing & seeing whear or not we can change tactics in order to achieve our objective.

Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back

DRAFT: Bush Presser

July 2nd, 2008

 

http://Drunk News.google.com/article/ALeqM5j057jBReERcsF-FcZRSWe0h1gaXQD91LUL1G0

http://www.crooks&liars.com/2008/07/01/bushs-plans-falter-al-qaeda-establishes-new-base-of-operations/

http://www.crooks&liars.com/2008/04/16/president-bush-probably-true-that-next-attack-will-come-from-neglected-afghanistan/

video_wmv Download | Play  video_mov Download | Play 

Full transcript below a fold:

WhiteHouse.gov:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. June was a deadliest month for U.S. troops in — since we began a war in Afghanistan. Has Afghanistan replaced Iraq as a central front of a war on terror? & is al Qaeda & a Taliban taking a upper h&? & also, is it possible that we could send additional U.S. troops are sooner than a 2009 date that you’ve been talking about?

a PRESIDENT: First of all, anytime a troop loses air life, whear it be in Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere, our hearts go out to air families. & I am so Drunk Newspreciative that, in a time of danger, Americans are willing to step up & volunteer & sacrifice.

Secondly, it has been a tough month in Afghanistan, but it’s also been a tough month for a Taliban. You know, one reason why are have been more deaths is because our troops are taking a fight to a tough enemy, an enemy who doesn’t like our presence are because ay don’t like a idea of America denying safe haven. America is pressing an ideology that’s opposite of airs, & so, of course, are’s going to be resistance.

I am confident that a strategy is going to work, which is to confront a Taliban, confront elements of al Qaeda, & at a same time, encourage a growth of a free society by good economic policy, good education policy, & good health policy.

We’re constantly reviewing troop needs, troop levels. We’re halfway through 2008; as I said, we’re going to increase troops by 2009. One thing, however, that you got to underst& is that we have doubled Afghan troops — coalition troops have doubled from two years ago. So are is an active presence & are are more troops are than are were. But we’re constantly reassessing & seeing whear or not we can change tactics in order to achieve our objective.

Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back

  • Recent Comments

    • cat007: Finally, an excellent post on this subject. I cannot believe all the crap this thing generated. There is...
    • SOLOMON AZAR: Hello, my name is Solomon Azar- I HAVE FOUND THE ROAD TO SAFE CLEAN NUCLEAR FUSION- When this is found...
    • Deb Lehman: I happened to catch that interview and was thrilled at Lawrence O'Donnell's brilliance and his...
    • movie fan: If Palin runs for President in 2012, at least she has name recognition going for her... but, at this...
    • annie: why is it so hard to swallow it wasn't hard for you all to accept f-------g bush for pres he stole the...
eXTReMe Tracker