Recent Posts

Search This Blog

Loading...

Search through my blogroll



Labels

Sunday, July 31, 2005

To American College students who seek any excuse to protest against the U.S. Gov't and those others who protest to bring the troops home:

Here’s something worthy of protests on the streets of every American city. Below are excerpts of a story in the Washington Post about women candidates in Afghanistan and the dangers which they must confront to have a chance to gain any seats in their nation’s Parliament.

Afghan Women Put Lives on Line To Run for Office By N.C. Aizenman Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, July 29, 2005; Page A01 CHARKH, Afghanistan -- The note slipped under Mahmoud Shah's front gate was written in a tidy, graceful hand. But the message brimmed with venom: "If you don't stop campaigning for Noorzia Charkhi, your life will be in danger. Also tell Noorzia Charkhi that she should give up her candidacy. Aren't you ashamed to put up posters of your family's women in the bazaar?" "I'm not going to quit, because I want to show people that a woman should be able to do these things. But definitely I fear for my life. . . . The people who did this already have blood on their hands," Charkhi said during a visit to Shah's home, 50 miles south of Kabul. "I'm even more afraid that they will smear my reputation," she added. "That would be worse than death." …In southern Helmand province, U.N. officials are investigating reports of letters circulating that offer a $4,000 reward for killing female candidates. In southeastern Zabol province, unknown gunmen tried to hijack a car belonging to Zarmina Pathan, a candidate and employee of a local aid organization. Afghan and U.N. officials said they are investigating whether the attack was a routine crime or an attempt to intimidate her. In Logar, Charkhi is not the only female candidate to face threats. Zobaida Stanekzai, 52, a school supervisor running for parliament, said she has little doubt about the motives of whoever set fire to the door of her mud-walled home several weeks ago. …"They were trying to scare me into dropping out," said Stanekzai, whose home was also attacked with a grenade last year when she took a job registering women to vote in the presidential election. "But my decision to be a candidate is unshakable."
You want to protest? Protest against the way women are treated in Afghanistan, and not against the soldiers who have given them the ability to challenge the system that has oppressed them in such a way that even now they are literally running for their lives. I know there’s going to be an anti-war protest sometime in September, but if you guys are serious about protesting for something meaningful, I do not want to see posters saying “Bring our Troops Home,” or “No More War”, or even “Money for books not war.” The truth is straightforward and simple, we are at war so arguments for no more war, or using money spent in the war for something else, are nonsensical. We have been at war since September 11, 2001 and will continue to be at war until we have eradicated those who are fighting against us. Until then, we will remain in Afghanistan, we will continue to go after al Qaeda and their allies wherever they are found and we will make them pay for all the suffering they have caused, not only Americans or the “West”, but also the many Muslims the have killed in their blind pursuit for power. Many of you might not have agreed with the Iraq war. Like me, you probably believed that either a) it was the wrong time b) the arguments that Hussein and al Qaeda were allies were unfounded and completely wrong or c) the WMD threat was overblown. I agree with you on all these three arguments against the war, however I still supported it. Why? Because Hussein had to go one way or another, and sooner was better than later and I for one will not shed a tear over his dead sons or the fact that he is now behind bars. That debate has long been decided, we went to war, we are there and if we leave we will be guilty of committing the same mistake we committed in Afghanistan in the early 1990s. When we abandoned Afghanistan back then, we allowed Pakistan and its Islamist allies to have full sway over the country eventually ending up with the Taliban and al Qaeda. If we abandon Iraq now, we not only leave it vulnerable to the Sunni insurgency that fears their minority status, but also to an Islamist insurgency whose main objective is the establishment an Islamist state in the heart of the Arab world from which to launch the jihad for the restoration of the Ummah to the rest of the Muslim world. I have before, and will again call on this administration to level with the American people, to let them know the truth about the Iraq campaign. We will be there for at least a decade; Iraqi forces are not ready to tackle the job of defending their country against the Islamist threat even though we have by last count 167,000 of them “trained”; the war in Iraq gave Osama bin Laden a point to focus all the anger of the Muslim world and a means to direct it toward the U.S., and as such, in the short term, we have probably given him more volunteers than he could have imagined or dreamed; just because we are fighting them “over there” does not mean that they can’t bring the war to our own soil, as the attacks in London have proven; this struggle will be bloody and violent; the U.S. and the West cannot win this war alone, it will only be won when we convince the moderate elements within the Muslim world that their future does not lay with bin Laden but rather with free-markets, tolerance and education and globalization; we need to wean ourselves off oil; things will get worse before they get better; we will be attacked again in the U.S. homeland; Muslims hate us not because of our values but rather because of our actions and policies in the Muslim world; ask for more sacrifices from Americans; if you want to ride a Hummer, go to Baghdad!; stop lying or painting rosy pictures of the progress of the war, it only reduces your credibility and makes you look incompetent when things don’t go as planned. All this said, please remember, in September when you go to your protests, if you must, protest for the U.S. to ensure that women in the Muslim world have a chance to fight for their freedom. I know we can’t impose our system of government on anyone, and I would never argue for us to do so. However, we can ensure that conditions in both Afghanistan and Iraq are secure enough so that a political process can take shape where women can still have a voice. As long as they can run for office without the threat of violence and death hanging like a cloud over them, we have given them a chance they have never had before. Ensure the security of the Afghan and the Iraqi people and they will choose a government that will fulfill their aspirations: a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Now that’s a protest I would love to see.

Read More...

Saturday, July 23, 2005

More on the Rove affair and how politicians and their political hacks are hurting our National Security

The testimony by James Marcinkowski more than anything gives us a rational and well made argument for why it is important to punish those responsible for disclosing the identity of Valerie P., as a CIA undercover agent. Once again, a CIA vet tells the ever growing ranks of political hacks that to confuse the good of the party for the good of the country is at best foolish and at worst a betrayal of the trust we as Americans place on our elected leaders.

Testimony of James Marcinkowski July 22, 2005 What is important now is not who wins or loses the political battle or who may or may not be indicted; rather, it is a question of how we will go about protecting the citizens of this country in a very dangerous world. The undisputed fact is that we have irreparably damaged our capability to collect human intelligence and thereby significantly diminished our capability to protect the American people. Understandable to all Americans is a simple, incontrovertible, but damning truth: the United States government exposed the identity of a clandestine officer working for the CIA. This is not just another partisan "dust-up" between political parties. This unprecedented act will have far-reaching consequences for covert operations around the world. Equally disastrous is that from the time of that first damning act, we have continued on a course of self-inflicted wounds by government officials who have refused to take any responsibility, have played hide-and-seek with the truth and engaged in semantic parlor games for more than two years, all at the expense of the safety of the American people. No government official has that right. …There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people.
To read the rest of his testimony please click on the link above.

Read More...

Friday, July 22, 2005

More from Larry Johnson on the issues surrounding the outing of Valerie Plame

I am posting excerpts of Johnson's post below. As I blogged earlier, he raises some very interesting points about the attacks on Valerie Plame and the lies spread by the RNC and their political hacks. This issue is very serious and speaks to the type of government we need to fight this current war on terror; a government that protects our national security, first and foremost. A government whose loyalty is to the country and its citizens and not to a political party; after all what's good for the party is not necessarily good for the country.

CORRECTING THE RECORD ON VALERIE PLAME

by

Larry C. Johnson

I submit this statement to the Congress in an effort to correct a malicious and disingenuous smear campaign that has been executed against a friend and former colleague, Valerie (Plame) Wilson. Neither Valerie, nor her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson has asked me to do anything on their behalf. I am speaking up because I was raised to stop bullies. In the case of Valerie Plame she is facing a gang of bullies that is being directed by the Republican National Committee.

...Without firm action by President Bush to return to those principles he promised to follow when he came to Washington, I fear our political debate in this country will degenerate into an argument about what the meaning of “leak” is. We deserve people who work in the White House who are committed to protecting classified information, telling the truth to the American people, and living by example the idea that a country at war with Islamic extremists cannot expend its efforts attacking other American citizens who simply tried to tell the truth.

If you would like to read the rest of Larry Johnson's post, please click on the link above.

Read More...

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Something to think about...

Below is an entry from the blog NO QUARTER by Larry C. Johnson who was the deputy director of the U.S. State Department Office of Counterterrorism between 1989 and 1993. In this piece he provides us with a very compelling case for why and how the administration is deceiving the American people with regard to the Valerie Plame case. Please read and pass on to as many people as you can, only then can Americans demand that action be taken to ensure that officials who disclose the identities of our covert agents are held accountable no matter whether they are Republican or Democrat.

MR. BUSH, HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

BY

Larry C. Johnson

Whatever happened to the Texas cowboy who would fight to defend the honor of a woman being attacked by bullies? Whatever happened to the Commander-in-Chief responsible for protecting the lives of CIA officers? George Bush, unfortunately is missing in action. He is standing idly by while a legion of Republican operatives fan out on the airwaves in an unrelenting assault on the character and reputation of Valerie Wilson, a CIA intelligence officer. Valerie, who is still a full time employee of the CIA, is not allowed to defend herself against this attack.

At the heart of the matter is the specious claim that she dispatched her husband on the mission to Niger to find out if Iraq was buying uranium. This is the big lie. Didn't happen and here's why:

To continue reading the rest of his post, please click on the link above.

Read More...

Friday, July 15, 2005

Bin Laden looses support among Muslims- Good news but...

Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says

By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A13

I came across this article earlier today and if true, then it seems that despite the violence and lack of any perceivable strategy for fighting this current war we are actually winning. I like to be an optimist, so I will take the WP’s word on this for now. So what does this mean?

The Good news:

Muslims are beginning to reject violence in the name of religion. (That's taken long enough!)

Now most of the killing by al Qaeda and other elements is against other Muslims.

People are beginning to realize that bin Laden brought the U.S. deeper into the Middle East and in a more violent way than it had ever gone before. (Yes, Iraq is a prime example, wrong target but it achieved the objective of displaying American military might, and willingness to wreak total havoc and destruction) –Not making a value judgment, just a statement of fact.

The process of change has been started within Islam; moderates are finally beginning to ask questions, and to demand answers.

The bad news:

Although Muslims no longer seem to like bin Laden all that much anymore, that doesn't mean they'll begin liking the U.S. anytime soon.

Now that Muslims are finally beginning to speak out against violence in the name of Islam, they have to confront the jihadists on their turf and fully engage in the civil war that so far only one side had been fighting, and winning. This could potentially be a very violent and bloody confrontation.

We are still going to be in Iraq 5 yrs from now.

Change doesn't necessarily mean pro-Americanism.

While he will likely not get the end goal he sought (the restoration of the Caliphate governed under Shari'a law), bin Laden will likely still be credited with beginning the process of change currently under way. While other Muslims are challenging their regimes peacefully and advocating democracy, it was bin Laden who challenged them first and legitimized the challenge to authority. He also forced the U.S. to change its approach to the Middle East by making us rethink our policy of supporting the status quo and instead become a revisionist power in the region (see promotion of democracy as the tool). In short, his violent campaign achieved at least a few of his goals in the end, it all depends now on how things turn out and how history is written and by whom. This is not to say that the War on Terror is over, as I pointed out, it will be a violent and bloody struggle, but if this report is right, for the time being we'll have Muslims working (even if not with us) toward the same goal, the defeat of bin laden.

As such, he and al Qaeda will need to stage massive attacks to recapture the momentum they have lost (no, London was not enough; not enough dead) and show that they are still very much in this fight. NYC, DC and likely LA, Boston need to prepare for a mass casualty attack. (Yes, that likely means thousands dead on our soil, again)

Killing Americans or foreigners is likely not the reason why support is dropping, but rather the fact that the Muslim world is now the battlefield where most of this war has been fought and as such they are suffering more than anyone else (see car bombs in Iraq and the 800 Iraqis a month dying because of them, also attacks in Philippines, Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, etc.). So while Muslims might still like an away game of humiliating the U.S. they don't like to play the game in their own backyard.

In war, to win, you have to make life so unbearable for the other side, that what you ask in return no longer seems so bad. This is what I think Bush was getting at when he said we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them on our soil. That is, we are fighting them there so that Muslims understand that these Jihadist pose as much a threat to them as they do to us. By taking the battlefield away from our homeland and bringing it into the heart of the Muslim world, we involve Muslims in the fight for their own future. In short, Bush is not a great communicator, but luckily Muslims know what's good for them.

Read More...

Monday, July 04, 2005

Michael Scheuer (Anonymous) is back and he is calling for Revolution

I found this article by Michael Scheuer (Anonymous), 22 year veteran of the CIA who authored both NY Times best-selling titles "Through our Enemies' Eyes" and "Imperial Hubris." He was the head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit until his resignation this past year. While I do not agree with everything he argues for in this article, I do think he raises some very important questions for the future of our republic.

Is the Right of the People to Alter or Abolish It

by Michael Scheuer

"An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for," James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 41. As America nears the 229th anniversary of its independence, it is well to recall Madison’s words and to remember what the Founders fought for is best described in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, which remains the single most important statement on the nature of our republic. It is true that Christian scripture informed the work of Jefferson and the Founders, but the declaration and the constitution that followed it are the only scripture to which Americans must hew. God, after all, will work His own will, to His own satisfaction, in His own time.

On this July 4th Americans must consider if it is again time to "dissolve the bands which have connected them with another" – this for the third time in their history. We did so in 1776 to shed ourselves of Britain’s thrall, and our wrong-headed but valiant Southern brethren did so in 1861 after deciding the Union’s political bands threatened their "country’s" economy, political aspirations, culture, and domestic institutions – including especially the abominable practice of black slavery.

The rest of the article can be found by clicking on the link above.

Read More...