Impeach him. Impeach him now.
Sep. 8th, 2006 08:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsSo, we've lost the war in Afghanistan.
In a treaty that will "end five years of border fighting," Pakistan has signed a peace deal with the Taliban, giving the Taliban complete and unfettered authority over the Pakistani province of North Waziristan. The Pakistani military was taking a terrible beating at the hands of the Taliban and this accord is regarded as a "face saving retreat" by the Pakistan government. The head of the Pakistani military said that if Bin Laden is in North Waziristan, he will not be taken into custody "as long as he is behaving as a peaceful citizen."
So, here's where we are, Mr. Bush: five years after 9/11, what seemed like a successful military prosecution of the terrorist organization that housed and safetied public enemy #1 was left to drift by the draining of troops to a second war, a war of choice with no clear objective. In that gap, Al Qaeda and the Taliban found safe haven in a Pakistani province they have now completely secured.
And unlike Afghanistan, we dare not send troops into Waziristan. It's Pakistani territory all the same, and if we challenge Pakistani sovereignty the government of Pervez Musharraf will collapse. Any following government will be more solidly Islamic, probably Shia', and will have access to fifteen working nuclear warheads and the missles to deliver them, plus the technology needed to build more. If there's one thing the Islamic tradition has going for it, it's patience.
So, here's where we are, Mr. Bush: even more unstable, insecure, and tragically unprepared. Bin Laden is a piker in the course of history: he's killed a few thousand Americans, making his success insignificant compared to the casualty counts of WW1, WW2, the internal brutality of the Soviet Union, or even the American Civil War, and yet we casually compare him to the worst villians of all four. Thanks to our administration's incompetence, he may yet acheive his dream of infliciting real harm.
In a treaty that will "end five years of border fighting," Pakistan has signed a peace deal with the Taliban, giving the Taliban complete and unfettered authority over the Pakistani province of North Waziristan. The Pakistani military was taking a terrible beating at the hands of the Taliban and this accord is regarded as a "face saving retreat" by the Pakistan government. The head of the Pakistani military said that if Bin Laden is in North Waziristan, he will not be taken into custody "as long as he is behaving as a peaceful citizen."
So, here's where we are, Mr. Bush: five years after 9/11, what seemed like a successful military prosecution of the terrorist organization that housed and safetied public enemy #1 was left to drift by the draining of troops to a second war, a war of choice with no clear objective. In that gap, Al Qaeda and the Taliban found safe haven in a Pakistani province they have now completely secured.
And unlike Afghanistan, we dare not send troops into Waziristan. It's Pakistani territory all the same, and if we challenge Pakistani sovereignty the government of Pervez Musharraf will collapse. Any following government will be more solidly Islamic, probably Shia', and will have access to fifteen working nuclear warheads and the missles to deliver them, plus the technology needed to build more. If there's one thing the Islamic tradition has going for it, it's patience.
So, here's where we are, Mr. Bush: even more unstable, insecure, and tragically unprepared. Bin Laden is a piker in the course of history: he's killed a few thousand Americans, making his success insignificant compared to the casualty counts of WW1, WW2, the internal brutality of the Soviet Union, or even the American Civil War, and yet we casually compare him to the worst villians of all four. Thanks to our administration's incompetence, he may yet acheive his dream of infliciting real harm.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 11:31 pm (UTC)When Clinton did not take p Sudan on theor offer, bin Laden was still on the CIA pay-roll so it would have been a bit silly of Cinton to act against Amerrican assets wouldn't it? And that was also why the Sudanese "offered him up", they didn't llke having CIA-funded terrorists in their nidst.
Also, even if bin Laden had been an enemy at that point, unlike certain presidents, Clinton probably thought that international law and the soverignity of foriegn nations are importan princples that shouldn't be violated just to take a potshot at someone yuo don't like.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-11 05:33 pm (UTC)1) How exactly is it that the "Bin Ladens were responsible for Bush's first million?" That must be some conspiracy theory B.S. not even suited for the inside pages of the National Enquirer, cause I've never heard of it. I bet you heard that from a caller on Air America... and since those callers are all well-informed sources, it *must* be true.
2) When Clinton was president, OBL was not on the CIA payroll. OBL had been named the man who funded the FIRST world trade center bombing, the Attack on the USS Cole, and about a dozen other terrorist attacks. He was public enemy #1 as far as the CIA was concerned, which is why a Drone UAR vehicle was filming him in the first place.
3) Clinton had no problem with the sovereignty of other nations when he sent a cruise missile into an aspirin factory in Iraq... during the height of the Monica Lewinski debacle, and only 1 months after "Wag The Dog" hit the theatres, which probably gave him the idea in the first place. (ok, that last part was a cheap jab, and probably isn't true, but can you see how easy it is to spin mistruths?)
Be better informed, or risk looking like an idiot.