By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on July 15, 2008 at 11:25 AM in Current Affairs
Absolutely pathetic. Rhetoric instead of understanding. His major address on Iraq today was a flop. It is bad enough that George Bush (and John McCain) has played politics with Iraq, touting the surge as the fix instead of admitting that a change in U.S. tactics on the ground achieved the progress we are witnessing in Iraq. McCain is hooking his fortunes to Petraeus, which appears to be a pretty good bet. But Barack demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about the military and how they are being used.
He insists that we must get out of Iraq because our Army is sapped and our troops worn out. And it is true that our military has been tremendously weakened by the war in Iraq. But then what does he propose? Moving more troops and personnel to Afghanistan. Excuse me? If we must withdraw from Iraq in order to rest and refit our troops then how does it make sense to expand military operations in Afghanistan.
In fact, how do you rebuild an Army while sending it out on a new mission that holds the real risk of a new war with Pakistan? War with Pakistan? That’s right. When Obama insists that we will root out camps in the tribal areas of the Northwest Frontier Province aka FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas). No two ways about it. If we send troops into Pakistan that is an act of war.
Barack ignores some key realities in Iraq.
The mission of U.S. soldiers and Marines in Iraq has changed dramatically without explaining the shift to the American people. For starters U.S. troops are no longer regularly conducting raids against suspected terrorist targets that involve entering the homes of Iraqi civilians and taking Iraqis into custody. A couple of years ago our guys were kicking in doors, rousting sleeping families, and hauling off guys we suspected of helping the insurgents. That helped fuel the insurgency because the Iraqis felt violated and wanted revenge. Worse, we put the men in prison with actual insurgents and provided a easy recruitment forum that helped feed the insurgency.
The decline in violence in Iraq was achieved after U.S. commanders paid attention to intelligence, which indicated that most of the insurgent violence was carried out by unemployed Iraqis who agreed to plant bombs for cash. We started paying tribal sheikhs who in turn are paying young men, who had spent their days planting bombs against our troops, a salary to protect their villages from foreign fighters. And guess what, the violence tapered off.
Most of the U.S. military effort in Iraq is focused on training and support of Iraqi troops. We also are continuing to go after foreign fighters with success but the troops carrying out that mission are spending three months a year in Iraq, not 15 months.
Iraq has been effectively ghettoized–i.e., Sunnis and Shias are living in separate enclaves, usually protected by Iraqi troops drawn from their area. Life in those areas is returning to a level of normalcy but sectarian violence and revenge killings continue. The key for the United States is to not be in the middle of the sectarian violence.
The issue is not so much one of “pulling U.S. troops” out of Iraq. They are being withdrawn regardless of the President’s position because the mission itself has changed. What needs to be decided, and what Barack completely ignored, is what kind of relationship will we have with the Iraqi government going forward.
Will U.S. forces still be permitted to conduct unilateral operations against foreign fighter targets in Iraq? These are by and large Al Qaeda sympathizers and Sunni extremists. The Shia dominated government will likely approve such operations because it helps protect them and their people.
Are we willing to accept an Iraqi government dominated by leaders closely aligned with Iran? If we completely pull our troops out of Iraq we leave Iraq under the effective control of Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. I am not advocating a war with Iran. I think we can deal with the Iranian threat thru diplomatic means. But simply pulling U.S. troops out without any thought about the consequences for Iranian influence in the region is irresponsible.
Barack also is ignoring the reality in Afghanistan. It is not a Taliban war but a tribal war. The Pashtun tribe is one of the largest in the world. It stretches from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Any strategy to counter the Taliban must focus on dealing with the tribal leaders and exploiting differences that exist within that tribe. Threatening military action in Pakistan, as Barack did today, without a clear plan puts him in the same category of George Bush, who pursued military action without a clear objective or understanding of the logistics needed to sustain the effort.
Barack’s speech today may have made sense in October 2002, but it is an inadequate, poorly thought out strategy for 2009 and ahead.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Andy Martin is reporting that he has proof that Obama’s parents were never married….
Who cares? Look, the marital status (or lack thereof) of two long-dead individuals is completely irrelevant to this election, just as Bill’s infidelities were irrelevant to Hillary’s candidacy. The problem with Obama isn’t his parents. The problem with Obama is that he’s both inexperienced and unprincipled. He knows nothing, and he believes nothing…but he’s willing to do pretty much anything to get elected. *That’s* what bothers me.
And “That” is why we care about the marital status. Obama is incapable of telling the truth on any subject, even what should be mundane subjects.
Exactly, Johnny at Work.
Wouldn’t have cared, if it was an upfront mention.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave……”
As with Nixon, it’s not the “crime”, it’s the coverup that matters.
Sorry, but I think this is silly - the relationship of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. is a private matter between two dead people. It’s none of my business. In fact, it’s not really even Obama’s business. It’s not something he had any control over, and it’s unimportant in the larger scheme of things. It *might* say something about the personal character of his father, but his father isn’t running for President. I’ll even spot him glossing over the whole situation because of some faint personal embarrassment. To paraphrase John Edwards, obsessing over his birth certificate won’t educate one child, rescue one foreclosed home, create one job, or prevent a single casualty in Iraq. It won’t make us safer, healthier, or more respected in the world. It’s just a different spin on the politics of personal destruction. While I might derive a certain amount schadenfreude from seeing the Obama campaign’s favorite weapon used against it, I think we all have much bigger fish to fry:
1) He’s willing to throw the Fourth Amendment under the bus for personal advantage
He has a long record of cronyism
2) He’s willing to destroy public campaign financing for personal advantage
3) He has no healthcare plan worthy of the name
4) Despite all his pious pronouncements about the Bush Administration and its policy of illegal detainment and torture, he still voted to confirm Mukasey
5) He’s publicly threatened a trade war against our two closest neighbors (and major oil suppliers), then contradicted himself
6) He obviously doesn’t have an Iraq policy, either
7) He just threatened to invade a US ally, all in the interest of looking “tough”
9) He’s waged an incredibly vile, misogynistic, and race-baiting campaign, deliberately splitting the party and defaming two of its leading lights
10) He voted *for* Cheney’s energy bill
11) He’s created a bizarre, quasi-fascistic personality cult around himself that frankly terrifies me - especially given his total lack of regard for the Bill of Rights
12) I suspect he’s a crook - he *certainly* has some very crooked associates
13) He’s an empty suit, with no real experience and no record of accomplishment. We’ve had 7 1/2 years of OJT, the last thing we need is 8 more.
*That’s* what I care about (and that’s just off the top of my head). The “birth certificate issue” is pure noise as far as I’m concerned. I wish NQ would drop it.
Its not the birth certificate per se, or the fact that his parents were unmarried, or that he is an illegitimate child.
The birth certificate issue is relevant to WHERE OBAMA WAS BORN. He faked the birth certificate, according to my research, to hide the fact that he was born in Canada, not the US.
That is the issue–is he a natural born citizen? So far, the answer appears to be no. He is therefore ineligible to run for POTUS.
I think Obama didn’t expect to get this kind of scrutiny on that issue. but it is fundamental to his eligibility. If he is found to be ineligible, then all his flip flops are just that. A politician trying to distract his supporters and potential supporters with a bunch of promises,words, and changed positions which we all try to figure out.
Agree if he is not an American Citizen he can not be President of this Country–we must wake up and turn up the pressure before it is to late–he is an empty suit–and not very bright.
I find it difficult to believe after 8 long years of GWB –we would be dumb enough to vote for the same mindless kind of leader.
Did we not learn anything in the last eight years.
Don’t read the articles about it if it bothers you this much. I want to see the birth certificate. We don’t even know if he has one as document he has provided to date could be a forgery. Is Obama eligible to be president? That question has not be answered to my satisfaction.
That’s a great summary, even if it is off the top of your head. And you what? The fact that you or anyone else can zip a list like that together of the facts on the ground, not supposition or things that may or may not be true, is a statement itself.
Obama is a deeply flawed, totally unqualified candidate that the Dems are trying to ram down our throats. He’s not running as an intern, this is the real deal: POTUS.
Personally? It scares the bejesus out of me. And the last few weeks have been incredible. For the Democratic Party, I think it’s absolute suicide. For me, it means I’ve jumped the party line because I cannot, will not vote for this man. Not now, not ever!
PUMApac.org
The marital status of Barack’s parents doesn’t matter to me but it obviously must matter to Obama. Is he ashamed of the circumstances of his birth? Does he resent his mother? Is this the underlying reason for the rampant misogyny?
As for Bill’s infidelities, that would have been relevant if Hillary had denied it ever happened.
I expect honesty and transparency from a candidate for President of the United States, not cover-ups and lies.
Who cares if it matters to Barack? One might just as well cite Hillary’s reluctance to talk about Monica. It’s
*personal* not *professional*, and it has nothing to do with whether or not he should be hired as POTUS, What matters to me is that the guy is an unqualified sham - I don’t care if he’s the love child of the Dalai Lama and Ethel Rosenberg. It just doesn’t matter in the larger scheme of things.
Yes, if he’s constitutionally unqualified, that’s a different matter - but other than that, this “issue” is a waste of time.
After all, there are so very many other reasons not to support the guy…
I agree completely. By focusing on something this irrelevant, it makes Obama’s critics look petty at best. The Muslim charge is an even bigger problem because it lumps the criticism that he and Michelle are not mainstream, to say the least, charges for which there is good evidence, with charges that have no factual basis.
There are serious, substantive reasons for Democrats to oppose Obama without obsessing about petty or factually questionable issues.
They knew his book was coming out so Michelle let that little cat out of the bag in her speech last week. You know, “proactive”.
The Rat made a big mistake letting the Cat out of the bag!
Losers! Who gives a shit if his parents were married or not.
The blog entry is about “Barack Does Not Understand Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran”. Well John (dumbshit) McCain doesn’t have a clue himself. I will take my chances with an inexperienced guy, over a dumbshit!
McCain is an ex-solider, who got captured, who got tortured, and fought in the last war America lost! He sucks, he is dumb, he knows nothing about war (remember he was captured and tortured, he FAILED)! further more McCain can’t even solute the troops (he can’t raise his arms)! McCain, you FAIL!
You are an idiot. Like Barky. McCain is not an ex-soldier. He was Navy, you douche. If you can’t understand the difference, you shouldn’t be commenting on military matters.
They grow em large and dumb in your family don’t they? McCain had the balls to step up and fight. People get shot down in hostile territory when under Enemy ADA fire. Then they get captured. McCain had the option of escaping his torment by accepting an early release. He refused it. He willingly stayed and faced more torture. If BOBO is lying about his upbringing all that’s saying is the little weenie muffin BOBOwaffles can’t face up to his own life, and it was good…Loving mother loving grandparents.
BOBO has got to go.
I believe it would be his own Bosnia moment, for one.
That means his autobiography was a lie, and he’s been misleading the public.
A LOT of people would not vote for him based on the obvious lying. They will say it wouldn’t have mattered if he’d been honest, but lying when you’re running for president about something so basic is unacceptable.
he knows nothing about war? he served on the Armed Forces Cmte for years and years, Uhhbama knows nothing about war.
In case you were wondering, yes, there is a village idiot line in the village of Idiotville. Your display has won you a ticket to the front of the line.
Well you dumbass, I will not take a chance with Obama. You see, I have a son over there right now and believe me, they’re scared shitless of a Obama Presidency. Wonder why? It’s because he doesn’t have a friggin clue as to what he is doing and he will get more of them killed than he will save. Understand? Of course not, you can’t possibly understand because it sounds like you have never served a day in your life, just like Obama. Get a friggin clue!!!
God Bless your son and family Ohio. Please thank him for his service.
Thank you Gina, people like this obamabot really pisses me off. They absolutely have no friggen clue. Totally hopeless waste of air.
Been out binge-drinking again I see. That malt liquor will be your undoing.
Drip, drip, drip…………
Barack, who studied international relations in college, has a profound understanding of the world as world leaders will discover when he visits them and regals them with insights into the human condition. Barack sees the whole picture, not just the parts lilke Hillary or McCain. He is like an astronaut who can see the needs of our precious planet.
hope you have a real big pooper scooper, seeings how you are so full of shit!
LMAO! Now that’s good satire! You should write more frequently.
ROFLOL I was JUST gonna say that!
He’s in SPACE alright! The space between those big old ears!
Oh he studied international relations in college. Now that makes me feel soooooo much better. After having spent a good part of my life in academia before moving on the the real world, I know just how much Theory works in the real world.
Any Professional can tell you that you cannot learn how to do a “real world” job in college.
Oh he sees the WHOLE PICTURE. This must explain why his has EVERY Opinion.
Next week: NEW Plan.
Do you think we will be forced into watching the old nuke movies from the 50’s again?
This man is dangerous if he believes that the world can be run on theory.
Are you on the pipe again?
Wrong board. Try Kos.
He learned everything to know about foreign affairs from the scribblings on the wall of a public restroom.
No the restroom he used when he was in elementary school in Indonesia.
This is probably close to the truth.
I doubt BOBO studied real hard — or made a big impression of his fellow students — because we’ve not heard from any of his fellow students about BOBO’s brilliance.
What about the “Obamometer”? A mythical instrument capable of measuring the schmooziness of a statement–invented with Obama as the model and standard, because his Harvard mates were not completely dim and noticed how he made his way through school. That’s some sort of success from Academia, isn’t it? (why I left and took up computer games–sorcery and dragons are more useful than higher ed)
Now that the NY–excuse me, Obama–Times has allowed him space for his scribblings on the Op-Ed page, I wonder…will they be extending a similar opportunity to John McCain to explain his positions on the issues?
No, it was one of those Coke trips he was on. He saw the power to rule the world! One song at a time. I’d like to teach the world to sing…
Oh yes He is the ONE. He knows all about the world because he lived abroad and made a few trips here and there. That is why he is an expert. OH yes, I best vote for him - he knows it all. hahaha.
I remember Obama saying his foreign policy ability is better than anyone in the race for President because he had lived abroad. Obama biggest memory of that period in his life was his mother telling him she married a man from Indonesia and they were moving there. He lived there from age 6 to 10, then his mother sent him away to live with her parents.
Baghdad Bobama.
And speaking of college, when will we see BHO’s grades?
Too funny! You should tell Barry that. He thinks he’s the best suited for understanding foreign policy from living in Indonesia for 4 years as a CHILD.
Obama is a freaking fool…fool
According to Kids for Obama, as a child Obama had far superior judgement and understanding than other children on foreign policy.
Man, this person has OD’d on the Hopium….
If you survive, the withdrawal is going to be a real bitch.
In the event this isn’t satire, I offer this little tidbit for you to think about: When you view the “big picture”, you frequently miss out on the fine details.
roflmao. if the koolaid works for you, ok. keep dreaming, but you should leave this site. your statements are untrue, cannot be backed up by anything, and are not convincing here.
bobo the clown troll.
Obama should have focused on US politics within his poli sci major if he was really interested in making a difference. You need to understand your own government stateside before you can change its relationship with the rest of the world. Domestic issues are important in and of themselves.
Hillary was a poli sci major too but at least her senior thesis was about American politics - a critical review of Saul Alinsky’s community organizing model.
There are deep intellectual roots to the conflict between their worldviews.
I studied Buddhism in college and have been meditating. May I be the Dalai Lama now?
No of course not. Please try to avoid such ridiculous statements.
BHO…What else can we expect from an idiot that probably learned everything about our military from Saturday morning TV comics. What’s scary, is that a large segment of America, actually trust this closet Muslim!
Here is the synopsis of a movie called Being There with Peter Sellers. See if the plot line sounds familiar to you.
Having lived his life as the gardener on a millionaire’s estate, Chance knows of the real world only what he has seen on TV. When his benefactor dies, Chance walks aimlessly into the streets of Washington D.C., where he is struck by a car owned by wealthy Eve Rand. Identifying himself, the confused man mutters “Chance…gardener,” which Eve takes to be “Chauncey Gardiner.” Eve takes him to her home to convalesce, and because Chance is so well-dressed and well-groomed, and because he speaks in such a cultured tone, everyone in her orbit assumes that “Chauncey Gardiner” must be a man of profound intelligence. No matter what he says, it is interpreted as a pearl of wisdom and insight. He rises to the top of Washington society, where his simplistic responses to the most difficult questions (responses usually related to his gardening experience) are highly prized by the town’s movers and shakers. In fact, there is serious consideration given to running Chance as a presidential candidate.
This movie was made in 1968 in 2008 they actually did run him for President.
I love that movie. And yes, we should start calling Obama Chauncy.
I’m getting dizzy here! This is not what he said here, where he was going to practically disarm America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfwKKxVC7_o&eurl=http://uppitywoman08.wordpress.com/
Now this is change Iran can believe in!
McCain just said now nice he has a plan for Afghanistan when he hasn’t even visited there yet. First The Plan, then the Visit.
Yes and lets not forget on his one visit to Iraq he left after 2 days and did not think the Afghanistan and Pakistan legs of the trip was important and I might add either was a committee meeting.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2×8dgx
Obama’s Senate website links news articles stating it was Obama’s first trip to Iraq. After spending two days in Baghdad Obama broke from the CODEL, which included Bayh, Sen. Christopher Bond (R.-Mo.) and Rep. Harold Ford (D.-Tenn.), early to spend eight days in Israel, Kuwait, Jordan and the Palestinian territories. Bayh’s delegation later went on to Afghanistan and Pakistan without Obama.
He’s very consistent.
The man says he believes in CHANGE.
That is exactly what he does every minute of the day.
Thanks for that link Uppity.
When I first saw that my Jaw litterally dropped.
O’boy want to do more than disarm, he wants to elimiate all defense and deterents.
The nuclear age is a risky one, but without it, we’d have had a ground war all over Europe and Asia for the last 60 years.
WTF is wrong with that man??!!
jezzzzzzz
bad ENOUGH that he had to READ that chit off a teleprompter
Hillary is so Above this bozo clown!
I could do a better presentation than that (off the cuff) just from what I remember from the Army 20 yrs ago!!!
He’s got ZERO experience in anything but Yapping!
He has not been in Iraq for over 900 days, Larry. What do you expect? Practical hands on experience is lacking. He did not even give General Petraeus the courtesy to be debriefed on what is going on while he thinks he has the JUDGMENT to be president.
It is ridiculous to have this guy with no hands on practical training be president of the US. Goodness!
It’s too much work to go actually LEARN something! Besides it’s hot and sticky there. Let somebody else go!
I know! Send zbig! Mr. “Jihaders, God is on Your Side”! That should fix it!
Zbig,Mika on MSNBC grandfather I think (Bzrezenski so?) a major backer of Obama had a BIG hand in starting the Afghanistan mess with Russia- the country Zbig hates. I read somewhere that Zbig’s plan if Obama is elected is to fan the flame between Russia and China for a fuel fight between the two. Hope that’s not true..Obama doesn’t have the experience to fix or do anything so his WH will be in ‘others hands.’
Yup.
chit just like W
On February 1st, 2008, Obama, shows his international naiveté by naming, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of the current situation in the middle east, as his Chief Foreign Policy Advisor.
Two weeks after Obama names Zbigniew Brzezinski as his Chief Foreign Policy Advisor, Brzezinski arrives in Damascus, Syria, to begin talks with the terrorists and political assassins of the Assad regime.
The visit is not coordinated with America’s embassy and will not be covered by the press, although Syrian press accounts said the delegation would visit Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad; vice president, Farouq al-Sharaa, and foreign minister, Walid Mouallem.
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) commented, “I remember thinking, ‘Why are we listening to him?’ (Brzezinski) He was the national security adviser for Jimmy Carter 30 years ago. He proceeded to talk to us about Iran, and I said, ‘Let me see, didn’t the ayatollahs come to power, didn’t we have this problem when you were in the White House?’”
Brzezinski was also the great promoter of Islamic fundamentalism, which he celebrated as the greatest bulwark against Soviet Russian communism. Using the Islamic fundamentalists, Brzezinski hoped to make the entire region between the southern border of the USSR and the Indian Ocean into an “arc of crisis,” from which fundamentalist subversion would radiate into Soviet territory, first and foremost into the five Soviet republics of central Asia, Azerbaijan, etc. It was in the service of this Islamic fundamentalist card that Brzezinski first helped overthrow the Shah of Iran, and then insisted that the replacement could be no one else than Ayatollah Khomeini.
Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam. Both Communism and Islam are universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state. Both do not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory. Both Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not recognize international borders. Brzezinski’s globalism has become evident in Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union. We can expect an Obama White House to pursue a very soft line toward Islam.
Great comment Harp….
I know all about Zbig, but had not read about his foray into Syria….
He is a dangerous man for the free world.
Ziggy Brzezinski led a delegation from the RAND Corp on his trip to Syria to meet with Assad. Ziggy brings the Internationalists and their money, that is why George Soros is a supporter. Get Obama and Bezezinski near the White House and you will have Iran kicking sand in the face of every American AGAIN!
My, my the same Syrians who were developing a nuclear weapon with the assitance of North Korea, until Isreal put an end to it?
“Two weeks after Obama names Zbigniew Brzezinski as his Chief Foreign Policy Advisor, Brzezinski arrives in Damascus, Syria, to begin talks with the terrorists and political assassins of the Assad regime.
The visit is not coordinated with America’s embassy and will not be covered by the press, although Syrian press accounts said the delegation would visit Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad; vice president, Farouq al-Sharaa, and foreign minister, Walid Mouallem.”
God bless Israel!
Someone DID cover the Syria visit story .
http://www.nysun.com/article/71123
The New York Sun 2/12/08
“Obama Adviser Leads Delegation to Damascus By Eli Lake
Supposidly Sen. Obama had no idea that ZB, one of his foreign advisors at the time, was making a trip to Syria several weeks earlier…
Actually the man you are referring to is her daddy. He worked for the white house durring the Carter administration in foreign policy. This explains the tremendous amout of foreign policy experience this supporter brings to the table. LOL. We all remember how poor a job Carter has always done with foreign affairs, and this man was his expert.
Obama has a plan(lie) for every single on of us. He is unable to tell anything that is true now, he has gotten so used to lying…thanks to our inept MSM.
McCain gave a very good speech on Iraq/Afghanistan today, with much detail on a new proposal for Afghanistan. Some of the highlights: double the size of the Afghan Army and getting other countries to share in that cost, creating a country-wide double-pronged economic and military plan for the entire nation, not the current piecemeal approach, greatly increasing assistance to tribes (including economic) to repel Taliban, working with Pakistani government to defeat the common enemy (i.e. not bombing Pakistan ala Obama) and much, much more. He noted that Barack was talking about what he would do before he’d ever been to either Iraq or Pakistan. He got several standing ovations, the last when he said he would put U.S. security interests before any political, party, or personal considerations. Country first.
I saw both of them. Barky had to read his.
I missed barky’s. i can’t stomach that man’s voice, cadence and back and forth glances to no one in particular.
If only I were Bulimic, then maybe could I watch O’boy.
“… new proposal for Afghanistan…”
Good idea, so how do we get NATO in on this thing? If I recall correctly, first go to the European Subcommittee. If only I could remember the name of who chairs it. Hmmmm. Sorry. I’m having a senior moment, but it’ll come to me.
Dear Larry,
Thank you for this great post. It is unfortunate that it was hijacked at the get go.
old91A10 et al NATO is in on this thing.
Further, one of the places where GW’s team were right, was on the reconstruction plan they proposed for Afghanistan because they realized that its weak economic situation fed the Talib. Congress only provided one-tenth of the money that was requested. Unemployment is rife, especially among young men. Economically disadvantaged people took to growing opium to survive. The Talib provided them with a market and protection. Voila.
Even further, American policy is to destroy opium fields, which puts a hand behind the backs of allied soldiers who need community support to root out Talib guerillas. Currently, there is a shortage of codeine, a derivative of opium. Only two countries are allowed to produce codeine naturally. The pharmaceutical industry creates synthetic codeine. To uphold the pharmaceutical industry’s monopoly we undermine the economic potential of opium in Afghanistan and its citizens and place allied soldiers at risk.
So, we undermine the Afghanistan situation by denying them badly needed infrastructure support, which opens up the opium trade, which provides the Talib with community support and narcorevenue.
Note, opium poppy growth need not be used for opium and its derivatives. Turkey grows opium for non-drug products.
Larry is right to note the pivotal role Pakistan will play in the upcoming Middle-Eastern-Asian conflict. Pakistani madrassas are producing an almost endless supply of potential Islamic warriors. The poor cannot afford to feed and clothe their children, let alone educate them. Madrassas provide food, shelter, and a Islamic education to these children (memorization of the Koran in Arabic, they speak Urdu) for which the parents are grateful. How we work with the Afghanis and Pakistanis to resolve the situation will likely determine the fate of the region and beyond. A catastrophe is likely. [Please see Terror in the Name of God by Jessica Stern]
Yours,
Steven
Yes, I know. I was attempting to be facetious.
Barack Obama had been the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs for two years without holding a session.
oops. I apologize for my poor eye for the obvious!
I’m sensitive because many of my people have died there.
Maybe Cousin Odinga can help Barry understand the world!
Great idea Diane! And he can help him kill whatever is in his way!
There is no reason to worry. As BoBo said, The One looks down from above and sees all. I did get a little worried awhile back when Obama said he’d hold a summit of Muslim nations, have a fireside chat, and work out a payment plan…no, oops, I made that last part up. He’s going to get everyone together and make a speech. Not to worry. Conflict is part of the past. In the future we will be united under Obama’s wisdom.
After his upcoming trip he is going to be a SUPER EXPERT and teach us all about the world we live in. Uncle Obama will guide us all.
Obama’s five goals as laid out today:
1. Ending the war in Iraq responsibly;
2. Finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban;
3. Securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations;
4. Achieving true energy security;
5. Rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
These things are all things that I believe in and agree with. Have ideological blinders prevented others from seeing that these are goals that we all should have? Which of these can a Democrat truly find fault in? (I would say an American, but I’ve learned never to underestimate the power of a Republican’s stubbornness.)
Well hang onto that thought. Tomorrow, a different speech.
You forgot “Solve World Hunger”. Surely the Incandescent One can do this in his spare time.
So you agree that these are good goals?
You’re so cute! Stop the hate!
I don’t think I hate anyone. Except maybe the Swiss. With their watches and banks and neutrality and everything.
And I have a bridge to Hawaii to sell you.
You forgot no. 6, rekindling the relationship with Larry Sinclair.
Haha. Drink spew warning needed.
In other words, Obama wants to play war in another sandbox.
We’re already in another sandbox. I think it’s a matter of taking care of the priorities instead of trying to build a nation and doing a poor job of it.
I think at this point events in the world are out of the hands of any U.S. President to control. If we had listened to Carter back in 1977 and enacted his energy proposals we would be in a better position. That chance is gone.
What about parting the Red Sea? Is he going to be able to accomplish that as well?
Ssshh… Don`t tell him that trick has been done already.
ponies for everyone
Please, please, please General Petraeus, offer him a ride in a tank, in front of cameras.
The pony ride would be more appropriate…. but ok the tank it is…..
Hey Obambi is plagerizing from Miss McGillicutty’s second grade class. That is verbatim the list that the 7 year olds came up with. Except their list had more detail.
All pitcher’s want a curve that drops off the table to compliment their high 90’s fastball. Wanting it and being able to deliver it ain’t the same thing kid.
Obama has goals. Splendid. Just how is he planning to achieve them? No generalities. Be specific. Goals without plans are called “dreams”. And no matter what he tells everybody, Obama ain’t MLK.
SEC,
These are motherhood statements. Who would disagree with:
1. Ending the war in Iraq responsibly;
2. Finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban;
3. Securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations;
4. Achieving true energy security;
5. Rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Frankly, if he’s reduced to throwing slow pitch, he’s not ready for the big leagues.
Yours,
Steven
these are the stated goals of every candidate who ran for the nomination of BOTH parties, LOL LOL LOL
Obama is truly a new kind of Messiah. Messiahs of the past used to say what they believed and then people would follow and believe in the Messiah based on his beliefs. Now Obama is different: His followers believed what they thought he believed in. Now they are believing that he will change from what he actually believes in to what they believed he really believed in.
The old Messiahs and their followers were so much easier to understand!
President Bush, John McCain and Barack Obama have, IMO, overplayed the military option to counterterrorism and counterinsurgency in the Middle East. There has been very little to no play re: plans (by anyone as well as Obama) for post-war Iraq and, what I mean by post-war is post-war after boots on the ground are gone. Bush has referred to this as “cut and run” without consideration of a possible change of rolls re: military intervention in foreign countries. So, the question arises again - can US special ops, intelligence, and training alone successfully serve the military option re: counterterrorism and counterinsurgency? Operations such as the one in Columbia are dramatic successes but is there a plan for post-FARC Columbia that ensures that FARC does not rise again in the near future? These post-war windows of opportunity are rarely, if ever, addressed by ‘America the Provocateur’ - a role was which has cost us, IMO, an erosion of influence in the Middle East. If we do not peacebuild where peacebuilding is due then don’t we have the repeated history of Charlie Wilson’s War? What bothers me about Bush, McCain and Obama is their lack of initiative and leadership re: involvement of the People in the solutions to the global issues that effect us all e.g. has privatization completely usurped public service? What happened to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” although now, with globalization, ‘world’ could be substituted for “country”.
Barack Does Not Understand Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran
He does not understand America either! He does not connect with the voters of mid-America…yes he is an elitist so that is the group he does connect with…why would we expect him to understand Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan? We know he has no real experience in foreign affairs, he has no real experience in American affairs, why are people so blinded by this hopey changey crap?
thanks for the great piece Larry..
**********************************
OT
Have you joined the New site yet? yes it is another site….
Democrats For McCain
http://www.democratsformccain.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=84
This is the site started up by Robert Pinizzotto and Frank is running it….I wrote a bit about it today… I think this is going to be the last site to join for me…to many sites to keep up with plus with so many sites we are not organized..Check it out and see what you think when you have time..
This is one of the worst and most self-serving analyses I have seen lately.
Obama was right on target today. The US is in danger from Pakistan and Afghanistan, NOT Iraq. We need to get out of Iraq as quickly and responsibly as possible and redouble our efforts to wipe out al-qaeda where they are based and protected in Pakistan. Protected there due to the idiot in the WH and his idiot surrogate McBush irresponsibly giving him cover. Just as No Quarter is and has been doing.
The problem of a tired and worn-out military is obviously a direct result of the corrupt policy of this president and his corrupt enabler accolytes like John McCain.
It was inevitable for anyone with eyes to see that our people in Iraq were destined to be redeployed to Afghanistan. If you actually cared about that, your wrath would be directed to where it belongs: with George W. Bush and John McCain. I firmly believe the first priority on this despicable site is to attack everything about Obama!
This place has zero credibility and has shown that you and your mindless contributors here are willing to endanger this country with feined support for a corrupt and failed policy as long as it furthers your purely political goal of opposing Barack Obama.
Disgusting!
Then why did he say this only 4 short years ago.
APRIL 5 2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kFrFIFizkU&eurl=http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-war-position-3-troops-out-is.html
Boy,I hope you’re not advising anyone on security issues.
Don’t worry because 99% of the people posting would never vote for a Democrat anyway. This little “movement” they claim to have will have ZERO effect on this election. They are a joke.
Look at the state polls…he’s up, up, up. That’s a fact.
Obama 08′
Your an Idiot
Obama 00
Obama 00 Ha, double fist bump HARP
Keep smokin that Hopium….
Stop the hate right now! You’re hurting my feelings.
then please explain why the hell you are here
you’re full of shit
I voted for Carter, Gore,Kerry & Clinton
How the hell does that make me someone who would never vote for a DEM?
MORON
I just tore my DFA sticker OFF my gdm car though. DEAN and his Bro and his GF Donna are TRAITORS to DEMOCRACY and YOU are TOO FOR SUPPORTING THAT TWISTED TAKE OVER
I am 38 and I have never missed an election since I turned 18; I am a lifelong DEM and very active in the party. You know not of what you speak.
JC,
Try to engage intellectually instead of acting like a partisan whiner. I agree that our military has been weakened and is a direct result of Bush’s policies (with Congressional participation, including the Dems for the last two years). So, please explain how committing more troops to Afghanistan helps the military recover its strength?
I agree that we need to be focused on Afghanistan right now, but Barack did not offer a single prescription for rebuilding the military that he insists is so weakened that it must be withdrawn from Iraq. Please explain.
Larry,
McCain is now for more troops deployed to Afghanistan. Neither Obama or McCain seem interested in the special ops/intel/training option that I asked about above - could the latter be or already is a cooperative with Pakistan?
Philip
Obama never said the reason for withdrawing from Iraq is because our military is so weakened. He agreed there has been progress and asserted it is time for the Iraqi’s to fight for their own future. What are we waiting for? What is this victory in Iraq McCain always spouts but NEVER defines? You are acting like an advocate of McCain’s, so I ask you, “What is McCain’s Iraq policy?” For that matter, what is his Afghanistan policy? Please explain.
Removing combat troops also does not preclude leaving support personnel in country to assist to Iraqi gov. when necessary. Our military has signaled recently where they conclude the real danger is eminating by moving the A. Lincoln aircraft carrier group out of the Persian Gulf to the coast off Pakistan.
You seem not to have put too much thought into the predicament we have in Afghanistan. You say in Afghanistan we have a “tribal war, not a Taliban war.” What exactly does that mean? Is that supposed to be some kind of policy position? And what do you think is happening in Iraq? Who is our enemy in Iraq? What is your solution to the growing dangers in Pakistan/Afghanistan?
If I interpret JC correctly, he might be right re: McCain i.e. McCain equates troop withdrawal from Iraq with “defeat” and says he knows how to “win wars”. However, if McCain focuses entirely on troop movements i.e. boots on the ground from here to there and if he ignores the bigger picture then doesn’t his strategy equate to self-serving spin? Isn’t No Quarter against spin? In other word where is the full analysis e.g. how can McCain or Obama win peace in Iraq and Afghanistan?
no, Obama has zero credibility. Look for him to completely change is mind when he finally visits Iraq.
For Obama, its just words and winning. That’s all he wants. If you can’t see this now, then you truly have no sense.
Obama is as tasteless and clueless as they come.
If OBAMA had truly cared wouldn’t he have tried to do something already? His words are EMPTY because there isn’t any ACTION when he has had the opportunity:
As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs, Barack Obama Has Failed To Hold Any Hearings On Afghanistan
STILL???
He has not been there YET????
That news came out during the middle of Hillary’s campaign and it seems like FOREVER ago.
You mean that pissant has not bothered to hold a meeting even after being CALLED OUT FOR IT?
I HATE HIM
HE IS STUBBORN & ARROGANT JUST LIKE W & cHENEY
JC,
“Only the Sith deal in absolutes.”
You said:
‘This place has zero credibility and has shown that you and your mindless contributors here are willing to endanger this country with feined support for a corrupt and failed policy as long as it furthers your purely political goal of opposing Barack Obama.’
Your analysis betrays a stunning lack of sophistication. You speak in absolutes about Obama, Bush, McCain, Larry, NQ bloggers, and the general situation, without providing reasons why we should see the world in a way that is so black and white that Bush appears to have given us a rainbow.
Further, if we are mindless, how do you account for these posts, which most reasonable people would infer, are produced by people with minds?
Yours,
Steven
your mindless contributors here are willing to endanger this country
Uh oh,
Barack and Michelle warn about fear mongering all the time, I am afraid you are off message and may be in danger of ending up under the bus.
Sen obama may not understand Iraq, Afghanistan & Iran however several of his foreign policy advisors think they do…
I question Sen Obama’s integrity and motives especially when he speaks to us about anything dealing with “security gaps” or international affairs. I am anxious whenever HE (Sen Obama) mentions anything dealing with foreign policy
They say that you can tell a lot about what kind of president someone will be by the people he/she surrounds themself with.
I especially question the motives and the capabilities of some of Sen Obama”s foreign policy advisors including Dr Susan Rice and Zbigniew Brzezinski (ZB).
Dr Susan Rice- a 1986 Stanford graduate and Rhodes scholar with a doctorate from Oxford University. According to reports, wasn’t she a major opponent of accepting Sudan”s offer to turn over Osama Bin Laden
during 1996 to 1997? (During that time Dr Rice was the Clinton administration”s Secretary of State for African Affairs and she was a former assistant National Security Advisor under Sandy Berger.) Wasn”t it her personal beliefs on Sudan”s credibility that led her to do this? Didn”t her opinion to reject Sudan”s offer to turn over Osama Bin Laden overrule the opinion of Tim Carney- who was, at the time, ambassador to Sudan?
We still remember what happened on 9/11. Why has this not been brought up for public discussion
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2002/01/osama200201
The osama Files, January 2002, David Rose
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0144,gould,29537,1.html
“Thanks But No Thanks-How the U.S. Missed a Chance to Get Bin Laden”
by Jennifer Gould, The Village Voice, 10/30/01
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=omar_al-bashir
http://www.espac.org/terrorism_pages/osama_files.asp
Zbigniew Brzezinski- people around the world want to bring him “plus Henry Kissenger-up on war criminal charges for the global atrocities committed-stemming from their advice to president(s) they were working for.
ZB has written books on why the US should seek control of Iran if US wants to maintain its global primacy in Euroasia(i.e. oil) .
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1097chessboard#a1097chessboard
“Context of ‘October 1997: Brzezinski Highlights the Importance of Central Asia to Achieving World Domination” Cooperative Research History Commons.
“Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski publishes a book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, in which he portrays the Eurasian landmass as the key to world power, and Central Asia with its vast oil reserves as the key to domination of Eurasia. He states that for the US to maintain its global primacy, it must prevent any possible adversary from controlling that region.
He notes: “The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America”s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” He predicts that because of popular resistance to US military expansionism, his ambitious Central Asian strategy can not be implemented, “except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” [Brzezinski, 1997, pp. 24-25, 210-11]
The book also theorizes that the US could be attacked by Afghan terrorists, precipitating a US invasion of Afghanistan, and that the US may eventually seek control of Iran as a key strategic element in the US”s attempt to exert its influence in Central Asia and the Middle East. [Brzezinski, 1997]”
Although Sen Obama (and Sen McCain) has not endorsed Kyl-Lieberman ammendment, I am confused about his position on using pre-emptive force against Iran.
Sen. Obama took on ZB as a foreign advisor last year after ZB endorsed him for president. I am not sure what Sen. Obama”s real position is with regards to war with Iran. Why has this not been brought up for public discussion?
ZB once supported the creation and U.S support of Islamic forces in Afghanistan 1979-1980 (forces that were ultimately led by Osama Bin Laden) in effort to combat the communist Russians.
Do you see why I am anxious about Sen Obama’s comments about foreign policy?
Me too!
Spot on, as usual Larry.
Yep O’boy is full of contradictions, pull tired troops out of Iraq, send them to Afganistan, Don’t agitate Pakistan, Chase the Taliban into Pakistan.
Not to mention the fact that he has no clue about the specialized training for specific missions for Military units, and which units have which training for which mission.
Obama would be a great Commander in Cheese, or Sleeze, but forget about Chief.
One bone to pick Larry, it was a combination of the surge, and Change in tactics that has turned around the Iraq war. The tactics could not succed without the surge.
McCain was the lone voice pushing for both. he was the lone Republican speaking out against Rumsfeld.
You give McCain some due, but you need to give hime all he’s due. I was against increasing troop levels, and I did not trust any of the Joint Chiefs for their loyalty to Bush and a failed policy.
McCain visited Iraq 8 times, listened to the commanders in Iraq, and he made the right calls, and the politically risky calls.
God Bless McCain for it, and give him full credit and dues.
Forget about the damn Bar-B-Que, who do you want in your foxhole, McCain, or Obambi?
Nuff Said!!
If the bush cabal had listened to a few Generals like Zinni and the other guy who both called for at least twice as many troops and were “retired” for saying it!
WHY should we give McKook the credit for something DEM Gens suggested from t he beginning of the DISASTER.
He did bring it bak up later but he’s not some hero for it imo.
Zinni and what’s the other Generals name that got canned? Nice guy.
Excellent commentary.
Obama’s decision to release his Iraq policy before his trip to Iraq is very telling.
Stand-by for more sweeping policy commitments without doing the required homework.
He knows the trip will be canceled so he has to act of if he was going to go.
Time to Bring Back some Oldies but Goodies!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uud-fqelmaI
http://www.bufford.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=737
I believe that Pakistan is reported to have “nukes”, so let’s just wander across their border and see what else we can disrupt and implode! Oh, yeah, just bring it on! The big “O” has already divided America by race, religion, gender, income, region, and zip code…real leadership folks! He could not lead a scout troop!
Yet, at the same time Obama is changing his stance, once again, on Iraq by declaring that we will draw down troops when possible in Iraq. Before this statement, he has borrowed and modified Clinton’s goal to draw down two brigades, regardless to send a message to the Iraqi government to get off it’s duff and run their own country.
Now he’s modifying his language to make sure he can come back later on and point to that speech to say, “I was clear that we weren’t just going to pull out of Iraq.”
His Principles should be entitled, “The Principles of Opportunism.”
J U S T
S A Y
N O
T O
O B O Z O
The
Inexperienced
Inadequate
Idiot
Thank you. I’ve been waiting for a readable piece on this.
Iran’s a little country and no threat one day!
The next day- whoola!
Iran’s a huge threat!
Which is it BO? Does it really depend on the state where you’re giving your speech?
And that was back in May of 08!!!!!
Do you see the problem Obots?
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, …
are far more dangerous than
McCain, Pelosi, Reid, ….
One last comment!
Who wants to take bets on when Obama will change his position on off shore drilling?
My money is betting before the convention, depending if the price goes + or -
Thank you Larry — for again making the point that BOBO has no understanding of the military CULTURE.
Military “think”, “speak” is so very different from civilian concepts of how to do anything.
Rummy really messed up as Sec. Defense because I don’t believe he understood the military culture — he wanted to impose the business model on the military.
Also the point about UNDERSTANDING the culture of the country that the US military is operating in — this is important and vital.
Obama as CiC would be a threat to the US military — because of his lack of understanding of the US military. And this is the main reason why I will not vote for Obama.
The Puget Sound area of Washington State is thick with military bases and active and retired military. A huge percentage of the clerks in stores near military bases are military wives. I have met NONE (zero) who will be voting for BOBO.
The military culture is changing, often I see husband and wife in uniform in local stores. This means that children now have to contend with both parents being deployed throughout their lives — and if the idiot civilians in charge of the military continue to disrespect the military — there will be fewer career military personnel. The military needs mid level career officers to function — try running the Navy without enough chiefs and first class petty officers!
Of course you would say it was a flop, you are a discredited hack - by the way asshole, where in the fuck is the whitey tape faggot?
Hey Jay, you so know how to sweet talk all of us into believing in the koolaide! You think you know so very much about the great Obama, where is he going to raise taxes to pay for doubling the amout of foreign aid to 50 billion? With all the programs he is saying he is going to pay for I think we had all better hide our kids piggy banks now.
Jay,
Come on man, there is no need to be a internet tough guy. I understand that you’re angry. You come to a site that is anti-obama and you start getting pissed.
There are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents like myself on this site. All types of people with a mix of views, who are all against Obama. Given the seperation of Americans over the past 8 years, I would point to this site as a good sign of people of all stripes coming together for a common cause.
Too bad for you that the cause is to point out that your candidate is a poor choice as POTUS. I can see that it makes you VERY ANGRY!
Duly noted.
The point is that all of the varied perspectives being written here are turned against your messiah. It must be hurtful. I actually see this as a positive for our country. Obama said he would bring us all together and damned if he wasn’t right.
Funny how you Obama supporters like to fling your little names all around the internet.
Guess gays aren’t welcome in the Obama alliance.
BTW. I don’t suppose you realise that, as a group, gays vote more consistently than any other demographic.
I think you just made an oopsie. Better go back to HQ, and get some better talking points from those whose intellect exceeds your own. That should be just about everybody back at OHQ.
(Did you see the unity bus lately?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poomuKzSGZA
I don’t see how any Gay person would get the warm fuzzies with Obama. I’m sorry but the man hangs flags with Che on them in his offices. We all know what Che wanted to do with Gay people. He showed us by rounding them up if they were even suspected of being gay. That’s why he began the firing squads. Plus, if you look at a lot of Obama’s sites, news sites. They love to use those words Faggot, and Butch Dyke. If I were gay I’d cringe at the thought of him becoming president. Che, his supporters…the party of racism and hatred. Just look how they still talk to people and the primaries are over.
really? wow more trivia I learn!
what a pig!! what a hater!!
there you go! $200 more dollars for HRC to retire her debt, and $100 to McCain to beat the crap out of obambi.
thanks for the motivation you stoopid troll. Just hang on there for the whitey tape, bozo, it will come just in time so that you will not be able to do anything about it.
Great! The whitey tape along with the New Yorker Magazine cover will surely seal their fate as “the little terrorists that couldn’t beat America”.
BOOYAH drkate!!!!!!
oohh! Your language is SO offensive!
Please stop the hate!
Right on, Jay.
You’re really making headway with promoting Obama. What a way to sweet-talk us.
After all, Obama’s campaign slogan is:
Feed the Hate. Obama ‘08.
Right?
Haven’t seen that kind of angst from a troll in a looong time. Something big must be up…
Fist bump:-)
“Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan,” Mr. McCain said at his town hall meeting in Albuquerque. “And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy.”
Baracktrack is a moron…
so the trip to iraq is nothing more than a photo-op then?
america deserves better…
a. hillary
b. mccain
america first!
BOBO refused to do his homework about Afghanistan — BOBO never called meetings of his subcommittee — which demonstrates to anyone who cares — that BOBO will be just lazy if he were CiC. He really could care less. He has no interest and he is INADEQUATE!
BOBO hasn’t done his job as US Senator — he was too busy campaigning. BOBO the jerk — and his followers have to be dumber than he is!
Two brigades? Wow, that’s a massive redeployment! You are a moron.
Do you even know what it takes to re-deploy 2 brigades a month ? Do you have ANY military experience or are just spewing Backtrack`s BS ?
I am becoming increasingly more willing to vote for McCain, due to the military situation. Obama’s statements even in his editorial left me swirling with doubt and questions. I simply don’t follow the guy. It’s that academese talk, lack of clarity. I can’t understand the position.
McCain makes sense. I saw his response to OBama’s comments today, and I understood McCain. He essentially said that Obama has it backwards. It will be based upon the success in Iraq that we can deal with Afghanastan. If we miss the boat in Iraq, Iran will surge.
I got that.
I agree with you, Larry, that Iran should be dealt with diplomatically.
Also, Obama has a piss poor energy plan.
At least McCain is aggressively promoting all options.
as Pat Buchanan would say, Uhhbama is just so faculty lounge…
Jake Tapper says Obama now on defensive about Iraq:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/the-success-of.html
Telling quotes:
The Black House is coming bitches!!!!
Obama is a N.I.G.G.A (Never Ignorant at Getting Goals Accomplished)
The Black house is coming bitches.. LOL I think I’ll use that on a poster
He has no idea what he’s doing and he wants to be the Commander in Chief. I don’t believe for one second he’s going to do well in foreign relations either. No matter what they’re saying.
OT: I have a few friends in Germany, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, the UK, Argentina, Brazil, India. We all snail mail each other. Have for years. (you can get some great chocolate from Germany and Brazil) Plus, I’ve hosted several students from around the world for a year at a time, that still come back from time to time to visit.
I keep hearing how all these people love him. Yet, none(NOT ONE) of them are doing the Obama dance. You would think at least one of them would be. Some like Hillary, some like McCain, and some like Condi Rice believe it or not. In fact several of them were hoping she would run for president.
Anyway one of them is a reporter with a German newspaper. She wrote me last night complaining about him. She said he knows nothing about the wars, the countries we are in war with. The military. He’s arrogant. When he talks he lies and lies and lies. Can’t you Americans in all those poeple find someone better to represent the Democrats? Than an actor from Hollywood. lol I told her don’t blame me I didn’t vote for him. (But I think she got it right in an actor from Hollywood) She’s still hoping McCain will choose Condi as his VP. She said you know how many languages she can speak fluently? She can speak to many world leaders in their own language. You should tell him.(I’ll get right on that, like he’ll listen to me. ;))
Google: Afghanistan + Alexander the Great & start reading
yep
its like the Izzard routing, where Hitler tried what Napoleon tried and it didnt work didnt work, too cold too cold.
here we go again….
lemme find it….
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1IRX2WTWvlQ
here we go Eddie Izzard,
Agreed. The guy you idiots back is much better o Iraq. Stay forever with permanent bases.
By the way Larry the child rapist. Still waitint for that whitey video.
You guys can’t let Whitey go, why is that? Do you have nothing else to comment on? Let’s talk about OBush’s foreign policy experience.
Sen. Obama does not have much experience internationally so won”t he have to be relying much on his foreign advisors for advice and guidance?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece
Times On Line-UK 12/21/07 ‘Stay-at-home’ Barack Obama comes under fire for a lack of foreign experience”
Will he have the luxury of making any decisions? If so, what will he base his judgment calls on? He has no experience…
How many times do I have to say it? Let me be CLEAR!
I have more foreign policy experience than Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain. I feel this is my area of strength and it puzzles me when people suggest I don’t have any. After all, I lived in Indonesia (in elementary school), traveled to Pakistan once in college, and have relatives living in Kenya.
What more do these people want?
Thank you for your post Larry.
What galls me is the fact that Obama is giving his blueprint for Iraq without actually visiting and talking to the Generals.
I thought that is what fact finding was all about. You go to Iraq first before changing policies.
I hope the Obamabots realize that Obama is pro war since he will screw up the gains in Iraq and start a quagmire in Afganistan and possible a war with Pakistan.
Thank you so much for explaining this Larry. I am convinced that Uhhbama would just get us into another unwinnable conflict, with Afghanistan, and Gawd help us nuclear armed Pockeestahhhnnn, but much worse because we could I think end up in conflict with Russia too what with Zbiegnew being around. Lake and Rice in a tribal conflict in an area of mountainous passes, where the Soviets couldnt succeed when they were logistically closer seems like a big mistake to me…
Just watch. Cynthia McKinney has accepted the Green party nomination and all of Barry’s disillusioned ex-supporters will find a new home there.
The Hip Hop blog is all ablaze with the news, where Barry is known as a house ni***a
see my post
http://democratsforrealchange.info
He’s getting pounded by a lot of the more conservative writers on his speech. As they rightly point out, he’s rewriting history. He claimed in the past that the surge would increase problems. McCain said the opposite.
The obvious question is why did he give this speech prior to his trip?
Johnny at work wrote:
“i can’t stomach that man’s voice, cadence and back and forth glances to no one in particular.”
Why does this bother me so as well? A semi-rhetorical question, but I’m doing my darndest to try to figure it out. I know some people didn’t like President Clinton because of his manor and dubbed him Slick Willy, and I never understood the Clinton-haters. It’s not like I don’t have enough reasons to NOT vote for Obama, but I don’t want to be guilty of the idiocacy that, in part, put the Clintons under the bus either.
Just trying to make sense of what that kool-aid tastes like.
Hillary 08
[...] Barack Does Not Understand Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran [...]
Obama Wants to Shrink One War, But Expand Two Others
By Tom Hayden, AlterNet
Posted on July 16, 2008, Printed on July 16, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/91645/
[...] Barack Does Not Understand Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran (by Larry Johnson, a security expert, at No Quarter) Absolutely pathetic. Rhetoric instead of understanding. His major address on Iraq today was a flop. It is bad enough that George Bush (and John McCain) has played politics with Iraq, touting the surge as the fix instead of admitting that a change in U.S. tactics on the ground achieved the progress we are witnessing in Iraq… [Obama] insists that we must get out of Iraq because our Army is sapped and our troops worn out. And it is true that our military has been tremendously weakened by the war in Iraq. But then what does he propose? Moving more troops and personnel to Afghanistan. Excuse me? If we must withdraw from Iraq in order to rest and refit our troops then how does it make sense to expand military operations in Afghanistan. In fact, how do you rebuild an Army while sending it out on a new mission that holds the real risk of a new war with Pakistan? War with Pakistan? That’s right. Click through for more of Larry’s analysis. [...]
Larry, Bloomberg.com Worldwide section today “Iran pours cash into Afghanistan, seeking leverage against U.S.” by Bill Varner. This is a must read
Larry: Great post. I too found the Obama speech to be a sterling example of saber rattling belligerence marinated in deep ignorance of the dynamics of South Asia, a region of the world that is notorious for intrigues and tribalism. Obama’s speech is red meat for the most cynical and dangerous elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan and could ultimately destabilize Pakistan’s ramshackle government. Nawaz Sharif has been beating the “screw America” drum very hard. Obama has for all intents and purposes given the Pakistanis the impression that their country now has a big bullseye painted on it - and wouldn’t it be just neat if their fears of being attacked were realized under a Democratic administration?
Wake me when it’s over. No mas, no mas.
for free interesting videos please visit azervideo dot net