November 23, 2011

Running out of targets...

... in the assassinate-an-al-Qaeda-leader game.

150 comments:

rhhardin said...

Al Qaeda is turning into a grass roots movement by way of trimming.

Scott M said...

That would owe to our wack-a-mole strategy of taking them out.

Original Mike said...

That's what winning looks like.

Andy R. said...

I am unsurprised that Obama is absurdly more successful than Bush ever was in taking down Al Qaeda.

It was obvious that Bush's "War on Terrorism" approach was doomed to failure in accomplishing what really needed to be accomplished.

Original Mike said...

"I am unsurprised that Obama is absurdly more successful than Bush ever was in taking down Al Qaeda."

It's a process, which Bush started and Obama is continuing. Rome wasn't built in a day.

John Lynch said...

I remember the meme after 9/11 that killing Bin Laden would do no good because he'd simply be replaced.

K.

Seven Machos said...

There's a really interesting (though poorly edited) website by a guy named Paul Morantz. He's a lawyer famous for fighting cults.

If you read through the articles, as I did because I was utterly fascinated, you see obvious themes in the cults. They have charismatic, religious or quasi-religious leaders. They fall apart when that person dies or goes away.

Al Qaeda is just another cult like Jim Jones or Maoist China and now that Bin Laden is dead, it's going to be dead or radically transform, too.

Pastafarian said...

Please enlighten us, Mr Hat: Just what is Obama doing differently to account for his success?

Be specific, please -- not just "he's appointed smarter people" bullshit.

Pastafarian said...

"...absurdly more successful..", by the way -- what a great turn of phrase that is. Has anyone ever told you that you should be a writer, Mr Hat? You'd be absurdly more successful at it than most.

EDH said...

I thought the very Bush policies that Obama first decried, but has continued, were a "recruiting tool" that was swelling the ranks of al Qaeda?

Original Mike said...

"I thought the very Bush policies that Obama first decried, but has continued, were a "recruiting tool" that was swelling the ranks of al Qaeda?"

Me too.

Andy R. said...

Asked about the hunt for Bin Laden at a March, 2002 press conference, Bush said, “I truly am not that concerned about him. I am deeply concerned about Iraq.” “I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you,” Bush added.
...
That year, it was revealed that the administration had shuttered the CIA’s Bin Laden unit in late 2005. As the New York Times reported at the time, the move reflected a shift in resources to Iraq:
Source.

Those would be some important differences.

Obama is clearing concerned with taking out the leaders of al Qaeda in a way that Bush never was.

MadisonMan said...

So sad, so very sad.





























Not.

Luke Lea said...

What, not blogging already about pepper spray incident at U. of C Davis? OWS got you down?

madAsHell said...

This is starting to look like political theater.

"Look, I killed another bad guy! Vote for me!!"

If Bush was doing this, there would be comments about collateral damage, and innocent children.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Obama is clearing concerned with taking out the leaders of al Qaeda in a way that Bush never was

No Al-Quada in Iraq, then? I guess Zawari was just some mook from Jordan…and again,. Tell me, what NEW POLICIES has Obama introduced? Enlighten us oh Hatted One….

John Lynch said...

Just to troll--

Since Al Qeada never managed to hit us again, and neither did Iraq, perhaps President Bush was right.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

That year, it was revealed that the administration had shuttered the CIA’s Bin Laden unit in late 2005. As the New York Times reported at the time, the move reflected a shift in resources to Iraq

So say AndyR of the Hat, has the “terrorism” stopped, yet? I mean we got that Mean Old Mr. Bin-Laden? Or does the war go on? Just asking? Would you rather have 1 dead Bin-Laden or 10,000 dead Al-Qaida members? Get back to me on why “getting Bin-Laden” was SO important, and now that I’s been done how come its importance isn’t manifest?

Michael said...

AndyR. Are you still posting from the OWS encampments?

Carol_Herman said...

We're not as smart as the Israelis.

The CIA just had 12 of its spies rolled up in Lebanon. Facing execution. Perhaps this was done to make a trade? Because, finally, Israel traded 1000 terrorists to get Shalit back. (Where the rest of the world didn't want to help Israel out one bit.)

What goes around. Comes around.

Meanwhile, as long as the Israelis are takling (let's say), about attacking Iran's nukes ... you have evidence that Israel is NOT going to do this!

When Israel goes to war, FIRST THING is a 48 hour period of radio silence.

Israel doesn't "run out of targets." They take out quite a few. And, except for the "Adventure in Dubai" ... they usually don't throw the entire Mossad "IN." While in Dubai, they held a graduation ceremony. Everybody had to prove they could get in. And, out. And, BE caught on the ubiquitous security cameras. Remember how Interpol jumped on these tapes?

Oh, the dead guy in the hotel room. Another one just showed up. Somehow, someone in gets to the terrorist. And, injects him with a muscle relaxant. He's then placed on the hotel's bed. And, he's smothered. No evidence is left behind. And, the dead body doesn't move.

This has been accomplished in some very hostile places. And, NO official in Israel talks.

That's not America's scheme of things. Unfortunately. And, the CIA is as inept as a spy agency can be. Probably, because it became the place for America's elite men ... to suck up the jobs. Remember when Nixon shoved the elder Bush to the CIA to lead?

Things have been going wrong in our State Department even earlier than that.

Scott M said...

AndyR. Are you still posting from the OWS encampments?

How many books on OWS-Zucatti do you think we'll see by March? Someone with an nominally useless degree like sociology (lol) had to have had enough sense (LOL) to go down there and document how their little Animal Farm started, operated, and eventually ended.

garage mahal said...

Looks like Obama really gets shit done when he doesn't to deal with intransigent Republicans.

Who knew the Kenyan Anti-Colonial Mau Mau Marxist Socialist Commie would be so lethal against terrorists?

No doubt Republicans would have blocked this had they the chance.

Andy R. said...

AndyR. Are you still posting from the OWS encampments?

I was never living at Occupy Los Angeles or Occupy Atlanta. I regularly visit Occupy Atlanta, and I go home to visit my parents in December/January I will probably stop by Occupy Los Angeles again.

traditionalguy said...

Does this mean that TSA's hassling of citizens will soon fade away too?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Looks like Obama really gets shit done when he doesn't to deal with intransigent Republicans

That would explain the Failure of Harry Reid (D-Nevada) to pass a budget in 900 days and the failure of Harry Reid (D-Nevada) to take up Obama’s Jobs Bill?

Andy R. said...

Get back to me on why “getting Bin-Laden” was SO important, and now that I’s been done how come its importance isn’t manifest?

There are two separate but related questions.
1. Is Obama, for a variety of reasons, better than Bush at taking out the top leaders of al Qaeda?
2. Should we be taking out the top leaders of al Qaeda?

I think the answer to the first question is obviously yes. The second question is much more complicated, and is more about the opportunity costs involved in devoting resources, and the potential for blowback. I think, it probably makes sense to go after the leaders, but I'm not an expert on Pakistan and it's unclear what impact our assassination plan can't be.

I can't figure out whether the standard Republican response is that Bush was trying to take out al Qaeda leaders and was successful (or set the stage for Obama's success) or that Bush didn't try to take out the leaders, but was successful in the other things that he tried to do.

Cedarford said...

Hat Boy ""I am unsurprised that Obama is absurdly more successful than Bush ever was in taking down Al Qaeda."

You credit Obama with actively advising the IA search group where to find him, or going over tactics that only he, the Black Messiah had calculated that would give the SEAL Team success?

I am unsurprised that Nixon was absurdly more successful than JFK and LBJ ever were in personally putting men on the moon.

David said...

The drones are a lot better than they were 10 years ago, as is the intelligence. That accounts for a lot.

Bush was focused on capturing leaders and had considerable success doing so. That was hard to do. The intelligence gained from the persons captured had a huge impact on the later success in going after the leadership.

If you look at the history of terrorism, it's hard to suppress. After the spectacular failure on 9/11 we have done a good job of protecting the US from terrorists. But the rest of the world is still pretty vulnerable.

The oceans still help.

traditionalguy said...

The debates have familiarized folks with the GOP field, and they are intelligent and are not nuts , except for Ron Paul of course.

Therefore a generic Republican no longer frightens folks with the unknown.

And the OWS revolt of the jobless college graduates wanting to kill off the Rich and steal their stuff is scaring people.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Is Obama, for a variety of reasons, better than Bush at taking out the top leaders of al Qaeda
Is he, evidence, please? IF by better you mean Obama got Usama, then yes, IF by “better” you mean killing or capturing the No.’3-on down, then not so much….

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


I thought all this “air-raiding Pakistani” villages was the OPPOSITE of what was needed and merely INCREASED the number of terrorists…I guess terrorists pay attention to the Party in the White House, Republican, drones INCREASE terrorists, Democrat, REDUCE the number, or is it that the NYT pays attention to party affiliation, not the terrorists?

Cedarford said...

Carol_Herman said...
We're not as smart as the Israelis.
=============
Considering the Israelis have managed to alienate every other country that once supported them save what AIPAC holds on to in the US and some small Pacific island they bribe to vote their way - no, the Israelis really aren't as smart as they think they are.

Even in the Republican ranks there are voices being raised that unless they are brought to heel, we should walk away and leave them to their own fate.

Seven Machos said...

Plus, Cedarford, Israel is filled with Jews. And they are super-powerful and clever and also weak and stupid. So, of course, you hate them. So you hate Israel.

There must be some Final Solution to this Israel problem, right?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Even in the Republican ranks there are voices being raised that unless they are brought to heel, we should walk away and leave them to their own fate
Broght to heel, I guess they will FINALLY get what’s coming to them, a FINAL SOLUTION, right HHerr Sturmbannfuhrer? If in Republican ranks yo mena the laughable Ron Paul I guess you’re right…

X said...

there can only be one.

Matthew said...

When Congress does not get in the President's way and the media is supportive, you can get so much more done with the same tactics

Robert Cook said...

"Since Al Qeada never managed to hit us again, and neither did Iraq, perhaps President Bush was right."

No, Bush wasn't right; he was a mass murderer and war criminal...as is Obama.

Al Qaeda never hit us again because their first hit was a lucky fluke, and it was obvious even right after 9/11 they were unlikely ever to be able to repeat their strike.

Iraq never hit us to begin with and was never a threat to us.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Iraq never hit us to begin with and was never a threat to us
Neither was Nazi Germany nor the Confederacy….and we fought them (Justly, I might add).

No, Bush wasn't right; he was a mass murderer and war criminal...as is Obama
And what would that make Hussein or Mullah Omar or Bin-Laden, and what should we do/have done with THEM, pray tell, Oh Stalinist One?

Robert Cook said...

"Does this mean that TSA's hassling of citizens will soon fade away too?"

No, because even though Al Qaeda is essentially vanquished--they say--other non-AQ groups inspired by AQ pose continuing and even greater potential threats to us.

In short, "we're winning," but we haven't won and won't win without there being many years more of the same militarism and aggression against other countries, with the concomitant shitting on our freedoms and civil liberties here.

Seven Machos said...

Robert Cook has stopped inanely arguing about the legality of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is now making actual policy arguments.

You are wrong, Robert, on all counts, but I commend you for seeing the light -- for finally understanding that the United States is not party to any treaty prohibiting the engagement of war, and that such a treaty in any event would be meaningless as soon as we change our minds.

Congratulations! I like to think I played a part in your education.

David R. Graham said...

This is WaPo electioneering hooey. And Andy R., you babble in ignorance.

WaPo/WH campaign team are setting up the lie that O is a success.

AQ is all over East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, Europe, USA, North Africa, Mexico, Australia and South America.

And in the AfPak they are melding into a stronger, far more ancient operation, the Haqqani network.

AQ nearly took over Iraq, with its oil, strategic position and WMD stocks that the Bushies, mistakenly, decided not to illuminate. They did wreak havoc there, torture and uncounted murder. The Bushies stopped them there and made the decision, correctly, that OBL himself was not a high value target given AQ's distributed nature. OBL has not been a high value target, a true operator, for years. Killing him - which the WH lied about, as they lie about everything - cost more in American lives and prestige than he was worth. It was whipping a dead horse, a straw man, for electioneering.

WaPo/campaign hooey.

Robert Cook said...

Uh, no, 7M...our war against Iraq was illegal and will never NOT have been illegal.

By the way, Greenwald has two columns today that pertain to these topics:

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

Matthew said...

Cook, do all terrorists get one free hit? Also, was their first hit 9/11, or one of the hits during the 90s?

Robert Cook said...

I think David R. Graham and Mick Jagger may be the same dude.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Uh, no, 7M...our war against Iraq was illegal and will never NOT have been illegal
So sad for our resident Stalinist, but the AUMF makes the war ENTIRELY legal, Cookie…and No the UN has NOTHING to say about it, and never took a stand any way.

David R. Graham said...

"Al Qaeda is just another cult like Jim Jones or Maoist China and now that Bin Laden is dead, it's going to be dead or radically transform, too."

Would that were true. It is far from the truth. Heresies do not die because their morphology is not physical.

Robert Cook said...

The UN does have something to say about it, and the Security Council "never took a stand" (sic) because we withdrew our proposed resolution calling for an invasion of Iraq when it became clear the Security Council would vote against the resolution.

Seven Machos said...

Robert Cook -- Bush took his case to the UN for political cover, not because of any legal issue.

The United Nations does not make any American law and will never thwart American policy or ambition. Ever.

Sorry, dude. Without power, there is no law.

Seven Machos said...

AQ nearly took over Iraq

When, dude?

You obviously know nothing about actual facts. It's sad and funny.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

The UN does have something to say about it, and the Security Council "never took a stand" (sic) because we withdrew our proposed resolution calling for an invasion of Iraq when it became clear the Security Council would vote against the resolution
And what did they say, Cooke…NOTHING…and what could they have said NOTHING…thank you for trying though. And get back to me on Hussein, Omar and Bin-Laden, and how they OUGHT to have been dealt with, also get back to me on the Nazi’s and the Confederacy would you, and explain how they represented a threat to us and why it was OK to fight them, but illegal to fight Hussein or the Taliban.

Matthew said...

The UN is only a nominal body of law. It is a cartel of public opinion and political jockeying. It could have been great, but how it has fallen.

Robert Cook said...

@Joe

"On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, 'I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.'"[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
United_Nations_Security_Council_
and_the_Iraq_War

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


And the LEGAL effect of this? Not to mention the PRACTICAL EFFECT was….yeah that’s what I thought. Plus the SecGen can’t give a LEGALLY BINDING OPINION, only present what the UNSC presents, so that was his OPINION, not a legal fact.

And Mullah Omar and Jefferson Davis and Reichs Kranz Hitler?

Seven Machos said...

Robert -- What is the source of Kofi Annan's power?

You do understand that law needs an enforcement mechanism, right? You do understand that the UN Charter is a treaty, which the United States can choose to abide by or not abide by at any time, right? You do understand the nature of voluntary agreement, right?

Matthew said...

So, how.many more Kurds needed.to die and women be raped for political intimidation aand US aircraft shot at before it waslegal

Cedarford said...

SevenMachos - " Seven Machos said...
Plus, Cedarford, Israel is filled with Jews. And they are super-powerful and clever and also weak and stupid. So, of course, you hate them. So you hate Israel."

Did they pay you when you were at State Dept to work for their interests, or did it just happen voluntarily, for free - like with many of their plants inside our government?

John Lynch said...

I'm very happy to see people like Garage Mahal firmly on the side of killing them all.

Where the fuck were you 10 years ago?

Matthew said...

I hate typing by Nook to comment

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Did they pay you when you were at State Dept to work for their interests, or did it just happen voluntarily, for free - like with many of their plants inside our government
1) Ah the old Dual Loyalty Argument, Joos have a DOUBLE loyalty and they have paid agents in the government, do you have a list, in your hand of these Israeli Agents, Senator?; and
2) It’s the Saudi’s who “buy” US diplomats upon retirement, close, in a Galactic sense, but not quite on target geographically or ideologically Mein Freund.

Seven Machos said...

I am not Jewish and did not work the Israel desk or in Israel.

I'm sure those super-smart, super-powerful Jews insidiously made me do their bidding, though, because Jews are dumb.

Robert Cook said...

@Joe:

Who says Hitler and Nazi Germany were no threat to us? They were engaged in conquering Europe and had declared war against us.

As for Mullah Omar and Hussein, who says we had to do anything about them?

I won't argue that we had to wage war against the Confederacy. Does the Constitution prohibit states from choosing to secede from the union? While the destruction of the institution of slavery was an indisputably positive outcome, it may very well have occurred without our having fought the Civil War.

Matthew said...

Cook, we should not have declared war on Japan, right? Pearl Harbor was just their one free hit, like 9/11?

traditionalguy said...

There goes another job.

When the automatic sequester hits next year and Obama says do what he says or override his veto, the the Military jobs will all end just like Foreign Agent Obama wants them to.

Seven Machos said...

Foreign Agent Obama

I wish the conservatives here would stop and consider how their language looks to ordinary people who could be convinced to be conservative if it wasn't for the bat-shit craziness.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Who says Hitler and Nazi Germany were no threat to us? They were engaged in conquering Europe and had declared war against us.
As did Usama. And Hitler posed no threat to the US, he had NO power to invade or disturb us. Just like Hussein, who was only attacking his own people and his neighbors. So either BOTH wars are illegitimate or NEITHER are, on their face(s).

As for Mullah Omar and Hussein, who says we had to do anything about them?

Because Hussein was doing the same thing Hitler was, and you admit it was OK to attack HIM, and Mullah Omar housed the man who master-minded 9/11…an attack on the US, something that Hitler NEVER managed.

I won't argue that we had to wage war against the Confederacy. Does the Constitution prohibit states from choosing to secede from the union? While the destruction of the institution of slavery was an indisputably positive outcome, it may very well have occurred without our having fought the Civil War
But it took a war….so too with Hitler and Hussein and Mullah Omar, there MIGHT have been alternatives, but they don’t seem very likely or workable. As an aside can you provide an alternative to the Civil War? A rational one? Buying the salves? Really a massive wealth transfer from the North to the South? And would you have FORCED the sale of slaves? If not, then slaves become a cash crop for Southerners, don’t they? Lastly the US Constitution may not speak to Secession, but Appomattox Court House does….

MikeR said...

Lots of fun in the comments, in the usual "President of the United States is All-Powerful" game. I see no honest way to know how much of what is happening is a result of what Mr. Bush did, or of what Mr. Obama kept doing or changed. Under both of them a lot of al Qaeda guys have been killed. I don't what more there is to say than that, though I expect people from both sides to say it anyhow.

Robert Cook said...

"Cook, we should not have declared war on Japan, right? Pearl Harbor was just their one free hit, like 9/11?"

Um, Matthew, in case you hadn't noticed, there is a difference between a sovereign nation with a powerful military machine attacking us with a squadron of fighter planes and a handful of stateless terrorists managing a terrorist strike of a magnitude that they will be unlikely ever to be able to repeat. In the former case, they have declared war against us and we must defend ourselves; in the latter case, a gang of criminals has committed an unrepeatable act of mass murder. We respond properly by utilizing international police work to discover and apprehend the planners and financiers of the criminal act and bring them to trial.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Cook, we should not have declared war on Japan, right? Pearl Harbor was just their one free hit, like 9/11

When you look at it, the Japanese were GOADED into attacking us…we opposed their “Imperialism” in China, but:
1) We were Imperialists, too, and so were hypocrites;
2) That was an affair between two sovereign states and NONE OF OUR BUSINESS
And then we froze Japan’s assets and basically were going to reduce them to the Stone Age, via Economic Imperialism…really Japan had every right to attack us, don’t you think? I’m just applying Ron Paul/Pat Buchanan/Lew Rockwell/Cedarford/Cooke “logic” here.

Robert Cook said...

"...Hussein was doing the same thing Hitler was...."

Not in the least.

David R. Graham said...

"I can't figure out whether the standard Republican response is that Bush was trying to take out al Qaeda leaders and was successful (or set the stage for Obama's success) or that Bush didn't try to take out the leaders, but was successful in the other things that he tried to do."

Both. The Bushies took out the leaders who mattered and were mostly successful in other things. Their huge failings were not putting the nation on war footing and not exposing the lie that no WMDs were in Iraq or found there. A third failing was not giving the real reason for taking out Saddam: it was he who contracted, with KSM, to hit the WTC, both times. By the second attack, KSM was also working with AQ. KSM and his family are Baluchis long contracted by Saddam and only lately come to AQ. They have no religious fanaticism.

Obama and Holder today let more bad actors walk in AfPak than they allow to be kept or killed because they, unlike Bush, and stupidly, against all experience, treat GWOT as a criminal problem rather than the military problem it is. Clinton-ites had the same stupid, American-killing outlook: cram war in a courtroom where lawyers can line their pockets and headlines be made - and too bad if some soldiers die.

Drone strikes: this is the one thing this WH loves to do. It sounds cool tech and clean. It is neither. And their ROEs for mil drones are legal rather than belligerent whereas their ROEs for CIA drones are off the record, conveniently.

This WH is not fighting AQ. They are fighting a private war in support of their friends in the ME - think Iran/Syria/Hamas/Moslem Brotherhood - and using USA mil and civ assets to pursue that goal. The civ assets are used the most because they are off the record, the mil assets are used to abuse, deplete, embarrass and demoralize them - because the WH and their party fear and despise the military calling.

The last Democratic President who was not terrified of war and knew what to do with it and when NOT to use it was JFK, who also knew the CIA is a shadow nation elements of which often oppose the interests of their host and thereby often constitute a threat to US national security.

Scott M said...

something that Hitler NEVER managed

Wasn't there something about a sub in NJ?

Seven Machos said...

We respond properly by utilizing international police work to discover and apprehend the planners and financiers of the criminal act and bring them to trial.

No. An attack is an attack, stateless or stateful. We respond properly by asserting our military into the places where these attacks emanate and killing people and breaking things. This is what we have done.

Please look at a map, Cook. Note where Iraq is and what it is next to.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

We respond properly by utilizing international police work to discover and apprehend the planners and financiers of the criminal act and bring them to trial

And when Mullah Omar says, “You can’t have him?”

Seven Machos said...

David -- When did Al Qaeda almost take over Iraq? Or are you just bouncing along from goofy statement to goofy statement?

Matthew said...

Ah. I get it Cook. Brtter to just let more, small attacks happen. How many bodies should we stack up, you know, to keep peace with mass murderers.

Also, the international policing was a failure, because some countries are helping them. But it was only some dead people. No biggie I guess.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

We "...Hussein was doing the same thing Hitler was...."

Not in the least


Sure he was…Hitler sent 600,000 GERMAN Jews to the camps, Hussein killed that many or more of his own people, on a far smaller population base. Hitler invaded all his neighbors…Hussein invaded Iran and Kuwayt…please Cookie explain how they are different. And in neither case did any of those acts “affect America”. And yet it’s OK to attack Hitler, but ILLEGAL to attack Hussein. The only real difference is Hitler was reviled by the Left and Hussein supported by it…..

Don't Tread 2012 said...

As it relates to the UN.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

something that Hitler NEVER managed

Wasn't there something about a sub in NJ


No dood those were Martians, in New Jersey…*SHEESH*

David R. Graham said...

"In the former case, they have declared war against us and we must defend ourselves; in the latter case, a gang of criminals has committed an unrepeatable act of mass murder. We respond properly by utilizing international police work to discover and apprehend the planners and financiers of the criminal act and bring them to trial."

The Japanese declaration of war arrived after the bombs fell on Pearl. OBL declared war on the USA before 9/11 and Moslem Brotherhood declared war on the West before then WTC I.

And I never liked Mick Jagger. I don't even like myself. And I thought Jagger is admired by most ... ? I do like Glenn Gould and Guimar Novaes.

Carol_Herman said...

We're not going to be fighting wars ahead, the way we fought wars in the past. Including that the draft is not coming back. And, through the 2nd Amendment lots of Americans are ARMED.

When we had the Rodney King Riots, in Blue, Blue, Los Angeles. The communities that weren't overrun by loots had used their guns at home. The police were nowhere in site.

The Second Amendment will work at controlling "local yokels."

And, the Israelis have taught that they can live surrounded by hostility. And, you can throw in the UN and the EU in the bargain. And, you're not going to see marching soldiers solving anything.

Don't know about the missiles. But I have learned about DUKU and Stuxnet. And, that when diplomats are chattering, there's no war news to report.

First signs of trouble will come with silence.

And, IF there were to be a war? It would not be like any war recorded in history, before.

As to the "FAILS" ... it seems the media won't be reporting the "wars" they want to start, either. Because everyone has a cell phone. (Not control of the overhead "sending arm" though. That's gonna be controlled "electronically." And, with pulses.)

Famine and starvation, ahead, will be the big killers. Diseases will run rampant. And, from Greece to Egypt you'll see tourists disappear.

Then?

What happens when the EURO goes bust? Banks in different countries "could be" issuing their own currencies. But at fluctuating rates.

Good clue:

To know that the EURO "crisis" is past it's "sell by" date. But Merkel is in negotiations with a few.

The few get to own the golden parachutes.

Or Merkel gets so screwed up with the Belgians ... the germans finally prefer hitler to merkel.

Robert Cook said...

Joe, you may very well be right in regards to our having provoked Japan into attacking us. But, even if true, once attacked, we had to respond.

Carol_Herman said...

Do I blame Obama? Hell, no. Everything he actually tries (by stamping his foot), leads him nowhere. The Israelis, who are the canary in the coal mine; just continue to be very polite to him.

And, now? Obama just wants to stay out of the debris path.

Maybe, by May he's gonna "adopt" a cutting policy to the Federal Budget, where everybody who gets a Federal check, gets to see it "discounted." 10% is a high number. 1% is low-ball. But it will pass. And, the congress critters from both parties? They'll be challenged by newcomers in every one of the 50 States.

You can't fix the State Department, either. Seeing Hillary "replacing" Obama is a stupid dream.

Which team has better strategists?

Well, I went and put my money on Donald Trump. He's beholden to NO ONE! Nor is Sarah Palin!

If ONE NATION wins just the White House in 2012 ... you'll see congress critters NEUTERED JUST LIKE PUPPIES! What that will mean is that they can't make babies who grow up to fill their seats.

The arabs were never our friends!

Dubya is responsiblel for believing in the fantasty that the arabs would greet our troops in the street ... the way the Italians greeting our American soldiers back in WW2.

How many lessons do you need?

Failure in Korea because the Koreans ran away from helping the Americans.

Failure in Vietnam. No matter how many Vietnamese restaurants you see. Their ELITES grabbed onto China's tail. (Perhaps, today, the Vietnamese have a better attitude toward Americans, and a worse one towards their Chinese neighbors?)

Japan's not in the game, because they caused their own nuclear holocaust. (It wasn't just the tsunami.)

Ireland is in a hole of its own making! The only people who were "owed" money when their real estate bubble burst was the germans. So the Irish elite in government pushed through a law that said the Irish people would pay off the whole debt. Not just protect Irish depositors.

The lame politicians are still in charge all over! Obama is now standing there trying to keep a major portion of the USA out of the debris path.

And, funny enough, Jon Corzine broke the law, when he couldn't make the "margin call" ... on what he thought was a safe bet: "Repo-to-maturity."

Remember this: Jon Corzine KNEW the bond market's complexities ... like you know the back of your hand.

The truth ahead? You can't take financial courses in college that lead you to making the kinds of money traders used to make.

You thought it was just the humanities courses that led nowhere?

Lots of places in history lead nowhere.

David R. Graham said...

Mr. Cook wants to cram war into a courtroom. You a lawyer, sir? A defense lawyer?

David R. Graham said...

"David -- When did Al Qaeda almost take over Iraq? Or are you just bouncing along from goofy statement to goofy statement?"

7M, when are you going to be respectful and leave off derision?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Joe, you may very well be right in regards to our having provoked Japan into attacking us. But, even if true, once attacked, we had to respond

Funny how that doesn’t seem to apply to 9/11 and Usama…

Seven Machos said...

David -- When are you going to tell us when it was exactly that Al Qaeda almost took over Iraq.

Also, I found your rude question disrespectful and derisive.

Robert Cook said...

"…Hitler sent 600,000 GERMAN Jews to the camps, Hussein killed that many or more of his own people, on a far smaller population base. Hitler invaded all his neighbors…Hussein invaded Iran and Kuwayt(sic)...."

We did not enter WWII because Hitler was exterminating the Jews, but because he was a threat to the balance of world power and to us...and he had declared war on us.

Hussein invaded Kuwait (after we had led him to believe we considered such matters none of our business) and we promptly and easily expelled him from there. (Once Hussein realized our intent to attack him, he offered to find a peaceful resolution, but Bush Sr. ignored him and attacked to accrue his own macho bona fides.) Iraq's invasion of Iran certainly did not find disfavor with us, and we supported it for geopolitical reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
United_States_support_for_
Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

In any event, Hussein lost that war. He was impotent as a threat to his neighbors, as both Colin Powell and Condi Rice acknowledged publicly and on video even in the months immediately prior to 9/11, after which he suddently morphed into an "existential threat," (according to U.S. lies).

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Joe, you may very well be right in regards to our having provoked Japan into attacking us. But, even if true, once attacked, we had to respond

Also as that was meant to be a sarcastic/ironic comment on the “thought” of Rockwell/Paul/Buchanan and YOU I don’t doubt you don’t get the joke…70 years AFTER the fact December 7 is a Day that Lives in Infamy, but on 6 December 1941, people like you and Rockwell/Lindbergh and the like were arguing it was none of our business….

Matthew said...

Cook, if Bush Sr. Wantes to prove his macho bona fides, he would have marched all the way instead of backing off.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

after which he suddently morphed into an "existential threat," (according to U.S. lies)

Who said he was an “existential threat” not the Wiki you cite…..Hitler didn’t represent an “existential threat”…Existential threat is the made-up “moral” requirement that the Left invented to oppose the War in Iraq. The US hasn’t faced an existential threat since 1783, or 1777 at Freeman’s Farm.

Kirk Parker said...

In other news, it's been quite a while since the Thuggees have been heard from.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

In other news, it's been quite a while since the Thuggees have been heard from

If you’ll recall President bush killed NO Thuggees during his Administration, because we were too focused on Iraq, that’s why!

Plus the Thugs represent(ed) no existential threat to the United States and were best dealt with via the mechanism of International law.

Seven Machos said...

it's been quite a while since the Thuggees have been heard from

I thought that remake of Killing Me Softly was awful and I'm glad they are gone.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)



Fugees, man FUGEES….you know they were of African Ancestry, right…you must be a racist! And I rather like the remake, just as good as the original, Carol King, right? You probably don’t like Elton John’s “Pinball Wizard” either…..

Seven Machos said...

I generally do not like Elton John. Obviously, that's because I am also anti-gay.

Pastafarian said...

I'm a little late to the party, Mr Hat, but you might as well say that Harry Truman was absurdly more successful than FDR at defeating the Japanese.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

I generally do not like Elton John. Obviously, that's because I am also anti-gay

One possibility, the other is you don’t like “Glam Rock”…neither paints a particularly nice picture of 7M, though…I mean Come ‘on “Crocodile Rock”, “Tiny Dancer”…who doesn’t like them? Next you’ll be saying you don’t like KISS or Brian Ferry.

Seven Machos said...

I do like Tiny Dancer. Who doesn't like Tiny Dancer?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

I do like Tiny Dancer. Who doesn't like Tiny Dancer

Oh OK, then all is well…I have to go listen to Roxy Music on YouTube…back soon.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

I am unsurprised that Obama is absurdly more successful than Bush ever was in taking down Al Qaeda.

It was obvious that Bush's "War on Terrorism" approach was doomed to failure in accomplishing what really needed to be accomplished.


Hysterical.

Name one Bush WOT policy Obama has changed.

Just one.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Name one Bush WOT policy Obama has changed.

Just one


We no longer capture and interrogate Hi Value Targets, we just KILL THEM…see it’s ever so much better and FAR MORE MORAL…Another person who probably doesn’t understand the difference between Fugees and Thuggees or thinks that Martians didn’t land at Grover’s Mill…

Rialby said...

Dennis Miller made a really good point about the killing of al Qaeda leaders vis a vis the Republican debates.

Newt Gingrich was aggressively questioned by Scott Pelley for the very policy that BARACK OBAMA is carrying out. Scott Pelley would NEVER ask questions like that of Obama the man responsible for doing the killing from 10,000 feet.

Meanwhile, liberals have been falling over themselves for the last decade about waterboarding. It's as if waterboarding, which is designed to leave those waterboarded physically unharmed, is more morally repugnant than leaving a stain on the desert floor where a man once stood.

Which is less defensible? Destroying the guilty and those around him from 10,000 feet or waterboarding someone to gain access to information?

Eric said...

Obama is clearing concerned with taking out the leaders of al Qaeda in a way that Bush never was

Obama has a drone fleet at his disposal that Bush didn't have. A drone fleet that Bush built, along with the human intelligence apparatus to find targets.

When you start your car in the morning, do you congratulate yourself for operating a machine somebody else built?

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

Obama is clearing concerned with taking out the leaders of al Qaeda in a way that Bush never was.


I love it when stupid college kids opine on policy issues.

Kirk Parker said...

Seven,

Nah, it just means you're anti-eyewear.

Robert Cook said...

"Funny how that doesn’t seem to apply to 9/11 and Usama…"

Oh, 9/11 certainly warranted a response; we just happened make the wrong response.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Oh, 9/11 certainly warranted a response; we just happened make the wrong response
Sure we DID ask for Bin-Laden’s extradition, you know Cookie, I was alive and sentient at the time…Mullah Omar basically said, “Blow it out your @rse” That on top of the 55th Brigade being an Al-Qaida unit in support of the Taliban and the fact that Mullah Omar allowed up to 20,000 Al-Qaida operatives to be trained in Afghanistan all combined to suggest that an arrest warrant wasn’t going to be honoured and wasn’t going to do us much good. But keep on spinning Cookie I love to watch…

Robert Cook said...

"Who said (Hussein) was an 'existential threat'”

Given the repeated (and false) propaganda promulated by the Bush administration regarding his WMD, and the references to the "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud," they were trying their damnedest to make him seem an existential threat.

Kirk Parker said...

"When you start your car in the morning, do you congratulate yourself for operating a machine somebody else built? "

Dude, you haven't seen my car!

Robert Cook said...

We didn't ask for bin Laden's extradition...we demanded his unconditional deliverance to us. The Taliban responded with a request for evidence of his complicity in the 9/11 attacks and Bush refused. Here's a link to a pdf that might refresh your memory:

www.fff.org/comment/com0905c.pdf

And here's a link to a news report where a Taliban representative voices this requirement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qLVWNdjFcY

Kirk Parker said...

Cookie,

I just LOOOOOVE the way you turn Bush's actual words (saying we can't wait until the threat was immanent) into him saying that the threat was immanent. Then again, backward thinking seems to be your specialty, so why not backward hearing as well?

Robert Cook said...

Kirk, that's imminent; "immanent" means something else.

Deny it all you may, (though it's futile), Bush and co. were trying to create--and succeeded in creating in the minds of many --the impression that Hussein was an imminent and substantive threat to America, thereby requiring that we invade Iraq.

Their propaganda regarding Hussein was successful to such an extent that many years later many soldiers fighting in Iraq thought we were there because Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

Of course, he was never a threat to us, imminent or otherwise, and to anyone paying the slightest attention at the time, claims for his being a danger to us were patently phony.

Jay said...

Bush and co. were trying to create--and succeeded in creating in the minds of many --the impression that Hussein was an imminent and substantive threat to America, thereby requiring that we invade Iraq.


Of course Bush's actual words were just the opposite and you have no proof of this.

Their propaganda regarding Hussein was successful to such an extent that many years later many soldiers fighting in Iraq thought we were there because Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

Of course you have no proof of this. You're just here flinging poo, you shit ape.

Fen said...

Robert Cook: Their propaganda regarding Hussein was successful to such an extent that many years later many soldiers fighting in Iraq thought we were there because Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

Total and absolute bullshit.

And you totally overlook the fact that our Iraqi campaign drew Al Queda in to fight in the sands of Iraq instead of the shopping malls of America.

Kirk Parker said...

Sorry about the typos; I can't even blame auto-confuse in this case.

Fen said...

Cook: Deny it all you may, (though it's futile)

What part of "we can't afford to wait until a future attack becomes imminent" do you not get?

You're a shameless liar.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... No doubt Republicans would have blocked this had they the chance...."

Heh. I was away for a spell and I see you're still as much a dumbshit as ever.

Michael McNeil said...

Wasn't there something about a sub in NJ?

Don't forget the torpedoing of the USS Reuben James by a German U-boat, which took 115 hands to the bottom on 31 October 1941.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... I am unsurprised that Obama is absurdly more successful than Bush ever was in taking down Al Qaeda...."

Andy makes an excellent point much in the way Truman was more sucessful than FDR in defeating Germany and Japan.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"...in the latter case, a gang of criminals has committed an unrepeatable act of mass murder .."

You keep saying this yet offer zero evidence to support your assertion.

Which is not suprising.

Eric said...

We didn't ask for bin Laden's extradition...we demanded his unconditional deliverance to us. The Taliban responded with a request for evidence of his complicity in the 9/11 attacks and Bush refused.

You can't be that naive. Nobody is that naive. If we had given them evidence, not only would it compromise methods and means (meaning losing whatever information sources we did have), but also they would have come back with "Well, when we get around to it we'll try him, and if he's convicted we'll think about extradition." And then they would have found one excuse after another to make sure it never happened.

Are you really that new to this foreign relations stuff? Did you learn nothing from the way Saddam Hussein and North Korea played the UN?

A country has the responsibility for what goes on inside its borders. The fact that the Taliban were hosting Bin Laden and his terrorist buddies made them just as culpable as Al Queda under international law. It is absolutely casus belli.

Eric said...

Their propaganda regarding Hussein was successful to such an extent that many years later many soldiers fighting in Iraq thought we were there because Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

You'll have to back up that assertion. I never once heard the Bush Administration say Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

Seven Machos said...

We didn't ask for bin Laden's extradition...we demanded his unconditional deliverance to us. The Taliban responded with a request for evidence of his complicity in the 9/11 attacks and Bush refused.

There should be no question that the United States can go and kill somebody or go to with anybody we deem remotely responsible for the deaths of 3000 people and billions of dollars in lost infrastructure. If you don't understand this, you are truly an idiot.

Robert Cook said...

"And you totally overlook the fact that our Iraqi campaign drew Al Queda in to fight in the sands of Iraq instead of the shopping malls of America."

Hahahaha!

"Total and absolute bullshit."

David R. Graham said...

"We no longer capture and interrogate Hi Value Targets, we just KILL THEM"

Both parts of that statement are false.

David R. Graham said...

"Deny it all you may, (though it's futile), Bush and co. were trying to create--and succeeded in creating in the minds of many --the impression that Hussein was an imminent and substantive threat to America, thereby requiring that we invade Iraq."

The NYC FBI office concluded after 11SEP01 that Saddam Hussein was the ultimate cause of it.

David R. Graham said...

"Of course, he was never a threat to us, imminent or otherwise, and to anyone paying the slightest attention at the time, claims for his being a danger to us were patently phony."

Saddam followed through with the second punch (SOP for specops): weapons grade anthrax.

David R. Graham said...

"And you totally overlook the fact that our Iraqi campaign drew Al Queda in to fight in the sands of Iraq instead of the shopping malls of America."

Excellent point. Not absolutely true, but valid and important.

Robert Cook said...

"There should be no question that the United States can go and kill somebody or go to with anybody we deem remotely responsible for the deaths of 3000 people and billions of dollars in lost infrastructure."

Did we have proof bin Laden was responsible (at the time we invaded Afghanistan) or was it enough that we "deemed" him guilty?

Assuming we had proof, why would we not at least try to obtain bin Laden the quicker, cheaper, easier, less destructive, deadly and wantonly wasteful way, by trying the non-war option? (Because Bush didn't care about avoiding war; he wanted war.)

Even granting your assertion, once the party we have deemed guilty has fled the scene, what justification remains for staying in country to continue killing the inhabitants? 10 years later? What goal must be accomplished before it can be said we have won? (That's a trick question: there is no such goal, and we will never "have won.")

We used the circumstance of a terrible crime to justify our own geopolitical agenda, to impose ourselves and our will over a part of the world in which we wished to impose our will. We responded to that terrible crime with a longer lasting, more deadly, and worse crime, that isn't over and which has led to other crimes, (among them, warrantless wiretapping of Americans, torture, the claimed--and acted upon--open-ended prerogative to invade and/or bomb any region on earth).

Robert Cook said...

"Saddam followed through with the second punch (SOP for specops): weapons grade anthrax."

Nope.

Robert Cook said...

"The NYC FBI office concluded after 11SEP01 that Saddam Hussein was the ultimate cause of it."

Nope.

Seven Machos said...

Robert Cook is most certainly and completely right here, David. Truly, you are a kook.

Seven Machos said...

The anthrax was most likely from a bat-shit insane American scientist who was obsessed with a certain college sorority among other things. He killed himself overdosing on Tylenol.

(This was not the first scientist the FBI investigated; he was cleared.)

Dead Julius said...

Fear not! Shortly we will be invading Syria and thereby provoking Iran into war, providing plenty of new targets!

David R. Graham said...

"You'll have to back up that assertion. I never once heard the Bush Administration say Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11."

Correct, they did not say that. CIA and to a lesser extent State were covering for past errors assessing Saddam and convinced Bushies that 11SEP01 was not his deed. It's called CYA and it was deadly.

But it was Saddam and plenty of responsible people inside the Beltway and outside knew it was him. Nothing like that is done without state-sponsorship, state-level resources. The anthrax especially.

When Bushies - actually it was GWB personally, a decision of great courage and, as proved by events, political danger - decided on Iraq, CIA and State, especially CIA, started the leak dribbles to NYT and WaPo saying Saddam was not a problem. Today those lying leaks, from the CIA CTC to cover their behinds for previous bad estimates on Saddam, are taken as factual by many, including commentators here. It started as a lie and persists as gross ignorance used for political self-aggrandizement.

CIA CTC started the lie that Saddam was not a threat to the USA. They did it to cover their previous errors saying he was not a threat to the USA.

Bush decided Iraq on two grounds: WMD, which Saddam had in tons, the bio especially well-advanced, and to create a democracy initiative in the ME, as he said, as an example to others. These goals of OIF were accomplished with superlative speed and power. US Armed Forces performed magnificently as did the Iraqi citizens once they realized they could be protected and were.

Seven Machos said...

David -- You are completely and totally full of shit.

By the way, I worked at the State Department as an officer. You?

Eric said...

Julius, we always urge our citizens to leave countries torn by civil strife. It doesn't mean we'll be attacking anyone.

And a single aircraft carrier means nothing, especially in that area of the world. I'll start to get interested when there are two, and even then the Iranians have more to worry about than the Syrians.

Seven Machos said...

Julius -- The State Department is currently urging Americans to avoid dozens of countries. Are we going to war with them?

Come on, dude. Try harder.

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...


Hahahaha!

"Total and absolute bullshit."


Mind you, coming from the shit ape asserting:
that many years later many soldiers fighting in Iraq thought we were there because Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

Jay said...

Even granting your assertion, once the party we have deemed guilty has fled the scene, what justification remains for staying in country to continue killing the inhabitants?

Um, enemy combatants from Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan are not "inhabitants" of Iraq, shit ape.

Jay said...

Did we have proof bin Laden was responsible (at the time we invaded Afghanistan) or was it enough that we "deemed" him guilty?

Shit ape:

He announced to the world that he was responsible.

You are an idiot beyond belief.

Seven Machos said...

Robert Cook is a stopped clock, perhaps slightly better.

garage mahal said...

Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 911? I thought liberals were responsible.

garage mahal said...

After all, our liberal cousins in China are responsible for millions of deaths! Also too Nazis.

Seven Machos said...

Garage -- It's true about your leftist cousins. Socialism under any other name still kills, imprisons, and destroys.

John Lynch said...

I bet you thought this thread was alive.

Nope.

It's just Robert Cook.

RC is pretty consistent, and I respect that. GM isn't, although I suspect a lot of it is a troll.

Either the war was a good idea 10 years ago, or not. If not, then why is it now? What changed? For RC, nothing, to his credit. It was bad before and is still bad.

If winning now is good, then why was W bad to start the war in the first place?

Hypocrisy. Again, for those who crow in triumph at Obama's victory, where the fuck were you 10 years ago?

AllenS said...

Unfortunately, assassinating these people doesn't give us a chance to capture and then waterboard them to get some good intelligence.

Cedarford said...

Cryto Jew -
"That was an affair between two sovereign states (China-Japan) and NONE OF OUR BUSINESS
And then we froze Japan’s assets and basically were going to reduce them to the Stone Age, via Economic Imperialism…really Japan had every right to attack us, don’t you think? I’m just applying Ron Paul/Pat Buchanan/Lew Rockwell/Cedarford/Cooke “logic” here."
==============
There was nothing 'wrong' with trying to economically strangle Japan over its depredations in China, or putting American military pilots in service of the Chinese government to shoot down Japanese planes and bomb&strafe Japanese formations.
But it is naive to say that economic blockade and "heroes" killing Japanese in China pre-Pearl Harbor were not actions, that no matter how popular with the public - put America and Japan on a path to war.

What we miscalculated was in figuring out we could get away with it because "There was no way Japan would fight the Royal Navy and the American Pacific Fleet. There was no way Japan would commit the folly of invading and then losing a conflict to take the impermiable Singapore defenses and the armed Bastion of Liberty that was the Philippines."

Then the Japs did.

And before Germany declared war on us, we had long before that violated all laws of neutrality. Arming the Brits, participating in hunter killer naval formations against German U-boats.
Again, nothing WRONG with that, but it is ignorant to now cast America as this innocent, uninvolved neutral nation not bothering anyone SHOCKED that Germany suddenly saw us as a belligerant.

AllenS said...

I would also like to add that the killing of bin Laden, Sadam Huessein, plus the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, will only stall the inevitable. Islam is on the march towards world domination. Just because we haven't been attacked again doesn't mean that Islam isn't making progress towards their quest. Take a good look at what's going on in Libya, Egypt and Syria.

Here is an article in the New Richmond News (WI) from Oct. 27, 2011:

Felony robbery and car theft charges against Abdiqadir O. Mohamed, 23. St. Paul, [MN], were dismissed Oct. 10. Court records said the matter was submitted to the council of elders of the Somalian community and an agreement was reached with parties involved.

Kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?

ken in sc said...

Brazil ended slavery in the 1880s without a war. It was accomplished over several years, starting with children born of slave parents being considered free. Older slaves could buy their freedom and slave owners and the countryside in general were not impoverished as it was in the US. The South did not really recover from the Civil War until the 1950s.