I was starting to get worried that it's been much, much, much too long since his last "we're all going to die" warning. If only he could show us color coded warnings just like Tom Ridge because nothing works the American public into a frenzy like color coded fear messages.
And for good reason. It's a complete hassle and the already poor airline quality gets worse by the day, not to mention more expensive. Whenever I can I avoid air travel and opt for the train, when I have to but that's not as much of an option in the US. As annoying as it is in Europe I find it much worse in the US. It might be easier to tolerate the hassles if there was a sense of it all going somewhere but the entire process strikes me as just another effort to continue the fear tactics that are so well loved by the Bush administration.
Surely there has to be a better way, but who really trusts Chertoff and his bumbling band of idiots to get this right? Maybe now that business is screaming and losing billions in revenue, someone might wake up and re-think the current (failed) model.
The drugs are destined for Britain's streets. The guns go straight to the Taliban front line. The weapons on sale include machine guns, sniper rifles and anti-aircraft weapons like the ones used in the attempt to assassinate the Afghan President Hamid Karzai last weekend.
"We never sell the drugs for money," boasted one of the smugglers. "We exchange them for ammunition and Kalashnikovs."
The drugs come mostly from Helmand, where most of Britain's 7,800 troops are based. The opium grown there is turned into heroin at factories inside Afghanistan, sold into Tajikistan and smuggled to Europe. The guns are broken down into parts, smuggled back into Afghanistan and delivered to the Taliban. One kilogram of heroin can buy about 30 AK-47 assault rifles at the bazaar.
Nato claims the Taliban get between 40 and 60 per cent of their income from drugs. The smugglers' claims suggest the real cost could be far higher.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other dignitaries quickly scrambled toward safety when the sound of gunfire and explosions in the distance interrupted a military ceremony they were attending in Kabul Sunday morning.
The Taliban immediately claimed responsibility for the attack which happened at a Mujahideen Day ceremony, honoring those who fought against the Soviet Union after it invaded Afghanistan in 1979.
So are their limits to how many times someone can be prosecuted? You might recall this dangerous bunch was rounded up during the infamous terror-scare that coincidentally occurred during the Bush 2004 re-election campaign. The 'Liberty 6' all were equipped with sporty terrorist uniforms, like any good terrorist so we can spot 'em on the street, and then talked about going after the Sears Tower, though it was never entirely clear if they even knew where it was located or how to go about such an attack. For that matter, it was never really clear if this was their intention or if they were just looking for new uniforms.
Never mind the details, the Bush folks had their terrorists in the run up to November 2004, facts be damned. The more terrified the public became, the better the odds of winning the election. Throw in a bit of gay bashing to take it over the top and victory! Ain't democracy great? Hooray for freedom and democracy! U-S-A Number 1! We're the best! We're the best! You know the world all wishes they were this free. You know it.
Did they think the Hamburglar was there or something? Why is George Bush trying to divert America's attention from his scandalous failures at home? Isn't that how their tired old story went during the Clinton years? Either way, the hyped attack was yet another flop.
The attack was the fourth known strike by the US inside Somalia since it backed Ethiopia's invasion of the country in December 2006. All have been aimed at men Washington believes to be responsible for terrorist attacks in East Africa. None has been successful.
Bush has no issue with asking for even more details on passengers coming from Europe - soon pushing for advanced notifications before even buying a ticket - yet in the US anyone can buy a gun with less information. Last time I checked, many more people die from guns in the US than from terrorism, but no, we would never want to disrupt the god-given right to buy an AK-47. Bush even wants to know who pushed granny or a sick child to the gate in a wheelchair. If only this administration showed as much interest in monitoring business activity that is costing American jobs and retirements.
The demand to put armed air marshals on to the flights is part of a travel clampdown by the Bush administration that officials in Brussels described as "blackmail" and "troublesome", and could see west Europeans and Britons required to have US visas if their governments balk at Washington's requirements.
According to a US document being circulated for signature in European capitals, EU states would also need to supply personal data on all air passengers overflying but not landing in the US in order to gain or retain visa-free travel to America, senior EU officials said.
And within months the US department of homeland security is to impose a new permit system for Europeans flying to the US, compelling all travellers to apply online for permission to enter the country before booking or buying a ticket, a procedure that will take several days.
Even Kabul is close to being threatened. Chalk up another botched mission by Team Bush and his boot-licking Tony Blair. If the US wants to be a leader, it's going to have to actually lead and not run away as we've seen in Afghanistan. Moving troops out of Afghanistan and into Iraq is coming back to haunt us. It's only a matter of time before the Bush crowd starts complaining again about NATO needing to send more troops when in fact, it was the US who abandoned this war. Mission Accomplished?
The Taliban has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and the country is in serious danger of falling into Taliban hands, according to a report by an independent thinktank with long experience in the area.
Despite tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid poured into the country, the insurgents, driven out by the American invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries", the Senlis Council says in a report released yesterday.
On the basis of what it calls exclusive research, it warns that the insurgency is also exercising a "significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change".
The president says, "[F]reedom fighters, struggling for liberty and independence, inspire the West with their courage in the face of a powerful enemy. . . . And let no one mistake this for a conflict between the Western Democracies and the Arab world. Those who condone making war by cowardly attacks on unarmed third parties, including women and children, are but a tiny minority. Arab nations themselves have been forced to endure savage terrorist attacks from this minority. We hope and pray the Arab world will join with us to eliminate this scourage of civilization."
A leading Democratic expert on foreign policy warns that the administration "wants to resume covert military aid . . . To its proponents, the [] approach represents an unusual fusion of power politics and morality. To doubters, it is neither practical nor proper. . . . [I]n this case, top Administration officials do not seem to want to be tied down to a specific label and commitment. Nonetheless, other lower-level Administration officials and . . . neo-conservatives or neo-internationalists have embraced it and elevated the words and actions to doctrinal status . . . To many of the critics, more aid to these forces is not likely to force compromises out of their adversaries at the negotiating table. Rather, as they see it, it could end up spurring further . . . aid to their allies and getting many more people killed in the process."
But the New York Times reports that according to Charles Krauthammer, "who is a foremost defender of the doctrine and who is widely credited with its christening, there should be no apologies for its 'universalism and moralism.' That, he argues, is the way to combat the ideological underpinnings . . ."
A Heritage Foundation analyst further argues that we need to give more than just monetary support: "Washington must do more than increase its aid . . . A more creative policy would include: Modern weapons: [Our allies] need more modern air defense weapons, accurate 'standoff' weapons, mine detectors, radio communications equipment and field hospitals staffed by trained medical personnel. Training: Military training is needed to enhance the effectiveness [], conserve ammunition and improve operational planning. [...] Improving organizational abilities: [G]roups should be encouraged to organize and mobilize the people of the areas where they are strongest.
So is it a good idea to give a bunch of money and arms to Pakistani tribal groups in the mountains of Waziristan? The above statements won't help you decide, since they were all about giving a bunch of money and arms to resistance fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That would be President Reagan at the top; the Democratic warnings come from Les Gelb. Irritatingly, Heritage is still Heritage and Krauthammer is very much still Krauthammer. This debate played out over twenty years ago.
Heritage, Krauthammer, and the rest carried the day, of course, funding a resistance made up of militant religious fundamentalists who we decided to take onto our side for the War on Terror Cold War. One of the people for whom the Heritage analyst recommended more modern weapons, training, and improved organizational abilities was, of course, Osama bin Laden (who is, it's worth noting, as alive and well after killing thousands of Americans as he was 20 years ago when conservatives were all for funding and armies his ideological compatriots because they were the enemy of our enemy).
I'm no isolationist. I like foreign policy, and I like foreign engagement. But when I read that "A new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against an expanding militancy," I want to light myself on fire. Haven't we seen this movie before? I mean, it's even some of the same actors (literally!). And it's not even like we're talking about the Pakistani army -- these are tribal groups. Are they even friendlies? NYT says, "The training of the Frontier Corps remains a concern for some. NATO and American soldiers in Afghanistan have often blamed the Frontier Corps for aiding and abetting Taliban insurgents mounting cross-border attacks."
Well, then. Emulating a policy that helped create the most significant global terrorist group currently in operation seems like a bad idea to me, but I'm just a stoopid blogger. Still, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that blowback might be a slight possibility.
[Note: The above quotes are behind the Times pay wall (research is expensive!) but the original articles are here, here, and here.]
The recipe for success, both for John Howard as well as other so-called Coalition of the Willing members, is falling flat in 2007. Accusing anyone who is Arabic used to be very well received by the media and the general population but after so many false charges and failures, the public around the world has become wiser. John Howard, prepare to spend more time with Tony Blair very soon.
Australian authorities dropped terrorism charges against a Sydney medical student on Monday, with a judge condemning police and intelligence agents for "grossly improper" behavior in the case.
Izhar Ul-Haque, 24, had been charged with receiving weapons training in 2003 from the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is listed as a terrorist group in Australia. The case was dropped after police interviews with him were ruled inadmissible in court.
New South Wales Supreme Court judge Michael Adams said intelligence officers from the secretive Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) had kidnapped and falsely imprisoned Ul-Haque during their investigations.
"It was a gross interference by the agents of the state with the accused's legal rights as a citizen, rights which he still has whether he be suspected of criminal conduct or not, and whether he is Muslim or not," Adams said.
The development is a further blow to Australia's tough stand on national security after prosecutors in July dropped charges against an Indian doctor, saying they made a mistake by publicly charging him with supporting terrorism.
The case is also a blow to conservative Prime Minister John Howard, who won elections in late 2001 and 2004 on the back of his tough stand on national security. But his government is struggling in the polls ahead of elections on November 24.
Sharif was greeted at the airport by police and has since been detained. Musharraf had warned against his return, fearing even greater disruptions to his own rule which is increasingly losing its grip on the country. So how is the Bush administration planning for the very likely, next dramatic change to one of its closest allies in the so-called war on terror?
Howard and his crack team can't even stop comedians, so who knows how they would manage to stop real terrorists. The fake motorcade was 10 meters away (about 30 feet) from Bush's hotel in Sydney. Looks like a bumpy ride ahead for Bush's faithful friend down under. Besides the two videos on the link, check out other episodes of The Chasers, an Aussie comedy program that tackles some favorites such as Fox News and the religious right.
You mean we didn't win? I thought Afghanistan was the cornerstone of Bush's success in the never-ending war on terror. Republicans bragged about this success story and have always been so sensitive to criticism of that other failing venture. So tell me again where Bush actually has had success in this supposed war? Heck, tell me where he has succeeded with anything, foreign or domestic. Just as he used to brag about our victory in Afghanistan, he used to brag about US home ownership standing at record highs, thanks in no small part to his brilliant team so I guess we should expect to hear him accept some responsibility for that Hindenburg-like catastrophe as well, right?
Wow. When John Edwards said basically the same thing, he got fried. So does Gingrich think 3500 US troops gave their lives for a "phony" war, or just a phony president?
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.
A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.
"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives....
"We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."
As Chris in Paris wrote in his earlier post about Tony Blair's successor Gordon Brown's then-upcoming meeting with Bush, he noted that Brown should keep in mind that most Americans and Brits want change and want out of Iraq.
Gordon Brown last night praised George Bush for leading the global war on terror -- saying the world owed America a huge debt.
The Prime Minister vowed to take Winston Churchill's lead and make Britain's ties with America even stronger.
Mr Brown stunned critics by THANKING President Bush for the fight against Islamic extremism, and insisted the UK-US relationship will be his No1 foreign policy priority.
..."We acknowledge the debt the world owes to the US for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism."
There's nothing wrong with expressing support for a strong partnership with the U.S., but there was no reason for him to affirm Big Military Anti-Terrorism Adventures -- if this is what he calls fighting terrorism, Brown may not be PM for long.
The Times Online, however, says the pressure for a Brit pullout on Brown is not far from his mind.
Downing Street remains emphatic that he will not unveil a plan to withdraw British troops, who are due to remain in southern Iraq until the Iraqi army is deemed capable of maintaining security. A spokesman said there had been no change in the government's position.
Behind the scenes, however, American officials are picking up what they believe are signals that a change of British policy on Iraq is imminent.
..."The view is Britain feels it can't fight two wars, and Afghanistan is more worth fighting for,” added the source. Yesterday a British soldier was killed during a rocket attack in Afghanistan, bringing to 67 the number of British fatalities there.
Also, check out the AP story on this same meeting between Brown and Bush. It's a decidedly different spin.
Brown took power just a month ago, with strong early marks for his response to terror threats and catastrophic flooding at home. He faces the tricky task of helping Bush tackle world crises without getting too closely aligned with a U.S. leader scorned in Britain.
Bush, meanwhile, likes to size up a fellow world leader in person and, over time, measure the person's mettle under fire. Yet he doesn't have much time left. And his popularity, along with a good bit of clout, have worn away with the war in Iraq.
"What the president wants to find out is whether the new prime minister is a reliable ally," said Simon Serfaty, a European expert at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. "The word to use is reassurance. This is not about a marriage. It's a date."
...Brown's spokesman Michael Ellam said there was no plan to withdraw British troops before the Iraqi army is deemed capable of maintaining security. Notably, though, Brown is covering his bases. After leaving Bush, he planned to meet leaders on Capitol Hill.
The John Howard team strikes again. Howard never fails to play the race card and the fear card - much like his friend Bush - and despite recent denials by the Government, the supposed case against Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef has been crumbling day by day, exposing the Bush-friendly government for the scaremongers that they really are. The only issue that is a surprise at this point is that Haneef is still being detained despite the charges being dropped.
Haneef appears to be guilty of nothing more than being related to a failed attacker and being a Muslim. What a relief to know that the Coalition of the Willing (and Going) is made up of leaders like John Howard, who struggle to appreciate what democracy actually means.
