A Shoe Drops

Sadly your use of Bush as a comparison for BHO is more and more apt.

That you use it approvingly helps cement your “serious” credentials.

Rambomba. I like it. Take that Dick Cheney you pussy.

You mean the president is actually trying to remove the biggest ally of the people who attacked us?? It’s about time.

no more Mr. Ghandi
.
Man what kind of fairy tale land have you been living in?

OT: Politico notes that the “Tea” Party polls better than the “Grand Old” Party.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30298.html

Can a split in 2010 be far behind?

I believe Bill Clinton was the last teabagger in the Oval Office.

” ..the Taliban/Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan have to be cleaned out. ..”

What happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?

You sure have a way with words, JK – the likes of which we have not witnessed in such breathtaking relief since the Vietnam war. That is the time when a village was considered “sanitized’ when all kids, women and men in the village were slaughtered.

“cleaned out” – as in that time when someone decided that certain people he deemed undesirable had to be “cleaned out” of Europe?

Are the USA allies of the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood terrorists who train on federal lands and kill Americans?

I would say no, on the grounds that the US gov’t does not encourage, condone, or even ignore the activities of such hate groups, The relationship b/t Al-Qeada and the Taliban was-and is-far more than just operating under the Taliban’s jurisdiction. For some dated but still relevant (from a historical perspective) info, go here:
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2360&from_page=../

Anyone who thinks Obama ever pretended to be Gandhi should abandon journalism and write for Politico. Did you miss all those speeches where he made clear that he was going to continue the fight in Afghanistan? And where exactly did he advocate satyagraha, not to mention marching to the sea to make salt? Would it kill you to actually know something about the subject you report on?

The President basically has two problems. A) Removing the Al -qaeda leadership, and B) getting tf out of Afghanistan (and Iraq) so the money can be more usefully spent elsewhere, like keeping Americans alive and keeping them productive by making sure they have an education – if you actually read half of the comments posted on Swampland you realise that lack of education is, in the future, the biggest threat to American security.
Which brings me back to my original proposal a few days ago.. Nuke Waziristan. Not only does this remove the threat of Al-qaeda, but it also eliminates the threat of a nuclear Iran. Sure it would piss off the Pakistanis, but who is to say what the Pakistani leadership would look like in twelve months anyway? Sure, there would be civilian casualties, but in a remote area like Waziristan would that be any more than there are likely to be in ten years of drone strikes and thirty thousand extra troops across the border in Afghanistan?

The repercussions from a nuclear strike would mostly be confined to the Middle East and Europe. Israel would become very afraid, since it would be clear that the US were no longer prepared to simply act in Israel’s best interests. Equally the Europeans would be far less reluctant to meet their NATO commitments next time around given the Pakistani reaction would be mostly felt in places like the UK.

Fallout within the US would, once the dust settled, be restricted to Republican fears that cuts in the defence budget – the biggest welfare program in the history of humanity – and a reallocation of funds to more directly influence thehealth and education of a wider group of Americans, would create a seismic shift in American politics for which the Republicans are not prepared.

” .. delivered an ultimatum: you move against the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani madrasa or we will. ..”

“we will” – unchalleged presumably, in Pakistan’s sovereign air space.
Yet we are not at war with Pakistan and, according to the Cairo speech, we respect the sovereignty of other nations. And according to policy and numerous speeches, we are not at war with Islam. Yet so far – as in previous administrations – we are very srident and virile when dealing with the Muslim countries yet pointedly impotent, gutless with the Judaic. [Well, for it is said,"If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck ..."]

This is preposterous – unless there’s information we are not told: How can we do that and not be accused by “the civilized world” of Saddam-like aggressive adventurism in Kuwait?

Do we still have a UN that talks about “international law” and non-aggression – or is it the UN’s idea that BHO, the peacenik, can destroy civilizations and pass life-and-limb-and-death sentences on mostly civilians – and get the Nobel Peace Prize while he is at it?

Now the world is shouting the accolades. Hopefully the world will not soon be re-evaluating their praises .. For once the slide starts, it will be a fast downhill …

.

” .. you move against the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani madrasa or we will.”
Yes. Now, about those sunday schools in America that nurture the likes of Tim McVeigh and the KKK terrorists and the vicious slave traders and the Islam/Muslim-hating Christians like Robertson, Graham, . … Or those of the violent ultra-orthodox Jews ..

Not to mention the Predator strikes that have occurred during Obama’s term, or the prison at Bagram, or his Administration’s efforts to block all attempts at justice for Guantanamo detainees.

” .. the Al -qaeda leadership ..”
And hopefully once the current leadership is gone, then that will be the end of resistance to Israel’s/west’s aggression/occupation in the Middle East. Really?

” .. so the money can be more usefully spent elsewhere, like keeping Americans alive and keeping them productive by making sure they have an education .”
We could have done all that years ago – if we wanted to. Bolivia can do it. Some countries of Africa and the Middle East provide free basic HC and basic education to their citizens. Are we the richest and the mightiest?

” .. Nuke Waziristan. “
After all, what good is a nuke if you can’t nuke someone?

“the Europeans would be far less reluctant to meet their NATO commitments next time”
Nuke them too. That should put back the fear of the “destroyer of worlds” into them colonial Neandethals.

” .. a seismic shift in American politics for which the Republicans are not prepared.”
They will survive and adapt. Those wingnuts are quite agile. Could DEMS come up with the bold idea of a birther and the deather as well as compelling contradictions like shrinking government and increasing spending on Medicare and defence? How about parading behind the banner of cutting costs of HC while removing the cost-cutting competition coming from any whiff of a potent public option?

“…no more Mr. Ghandi”

I think Joe needs to have a couple of cocktails with Tom, “Afghanistan is a special needs child”, Friedman. Can you believe what these guys keep getting paid for this unctuous crap?

When Saddam denied that he had WMDs ready to destroy our western civilization in 45 minutes, we had certain (impossible) actions which we demanded from him. Our stance was that talk is cheap. We demanded that he had to “walk the walk”, so it was said. [But he had no legs.]

So, let us walk the walk.

We have not vigorously sought to keep those aligned to America’s terrorists out of our government, institutions and major political parties. We can do if we wanted to – with as much gusto as we mustered when we had to deal with the hated communists and black panthers.

We have not hunted the American terrorists down nor water-boarded any.
We have not vigorously prosecuted the terrorists in our military or civilian courts – in the same manner that we pursue “suspected terrorists” the world over. Where are our village watch groups similar to those we establish and fund in Iraq/Pakistan? [Here comes the duplicitous excuses. Do Americans yearn for less protection from terror?]

The American terrorists have not been ostracized in our society. we have not sought to pursue those who aid and comfort them. [And we do not mount the Iraq/Afghanistan-style well funded psyche war ops that would dislodge them ..] Are we capable of doing that?

We have not moved forcefully against those hate/terror groups. Yet if a foreign country or international agent gave the USA an ultimatum to do so, we would resist vigorously.

Of course we have our reasons – and Afghanistan had its reasons too.

We would draw fine and convenient distinctions why our situation with regard to nurturing terror groups is different from Afghanistan’s. We have “justifications” galore for our actions or the lack thereof – with a few more flowing freely from FOX.

I proffer that over the years, USA’s terror groups – which have operated/trained freely on lands under USA’s jurisdiction – have wreaked life-altering terror and killed more Americans than those that perished on 9/11.

JK: I confess to being shocked at the implicit arrogance of the “US must strike against Pakistan” argument. It is breathtakingingly stupid. This Obama administration has been in sync with the Bush Admin on a number of issues – esp in the law and order and information gathering world. It has ignored the gun-toting “weekend warriors and patriots” in our midst. But it seeks to impose its will on Pakistan? Really?

Is it a good time to remind everyone that Obama was the first and only candidate to suggest that if we had actionable intelligence on OBL’s location in Pakistan and that if the Pakistani’s wouldn’t act then we would.
.
He was almost universally condemned as being naive and harming our alliance and Pakistani stability. Do any of the massive number of people who were vocal at the time care to reevaluate their thinking? Was his bad idea, now a good one?
.
And further, is anyone pretending to be surprised that he’s doing exactly what he said he was going to do?

I’m not entirely sure that also having a war in Pakistan counts as a good thing. Might be fair to note that a lot of Obama’s supporters voted for him because we’d like fewer wars, not new adventures.

I’d buy that if he did the things he said he would do about Guantanamo, etc, etc

“Cleaned out”, Mr. Klein?

You mean like this?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/

Or “cleaned out” like this, perhaps?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/dropping-a-dime/

“and further, is anyone pretending to be surprised that he’s doing exactly what he said he was going to do?”
.
Very similar to the answer I give to my friends(many of them liberal) when they incredulously ask “what the hell is this guy doing?”

When in doubt, snark!

For the Obama surge to work in Afghanistan, the Taliban/Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan have to be cleaned out.

This is like saying that a football team’s kicker has a plan to win by kicking lots of extra points…but in order for the plan to work the rest of the offense has to score a bunch of touchdowns.

Really, is that all?

Words to live by my man. Words to live by.
.
On a more serious note, go after the terrorists where they actually are, not where we are. To me it’s like suspecting your child is hiding drugs in his room but you search every room in the house except his room.

Joe, thank you for pointing out this article. But you need to take the next step: condemn our involvement in Afghanistan.
.
For the Obama surge to work in Afghanistan, the Taliban/Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan have to be cleaned out.
.
The “surge” has will cannot work, at least as sold to the public.
.
This counterinsurgency will be fruitless, by definition:
.
McChrystal wants to do a “classic” counterinsurgency operation, based on the doctrine prescribed in Field Manual 3-24 that states unequivocally, in several places, that successful counterinsurgency operations require effective and legitimate governance. We’ll never get that from Karzai. He’s congenitally crooked; he’s a warlord whose cabinet is made up of fellow warlords and his brother Ahmed is a drug lord who’s on the CIA payroll. Drugs finance the Taliban and Hamid himself has old ties to the Taliban.
.
The Taliban is not al Qaeda, this suggesting such is misleading in the same way that equating Iraq and al Qaeda was. Further, (The Taliban) pledged that their organization has no international dimensions and they do not seek to commit terrorism in the West. The Taliban are pulling away from the wounded al-Qaeda.
.

(continued)
.
Pakistan believes that the surge will make matters worse:
.
Pakistan’s policymakers believe the US military build up would lead to more violence, push more refugees into Pakistan and further strain socio-economic conditions.
(…)
They said more US soldiers could push more terrorists into Pakistan through the porous border and further destabilise the border region.
- http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\124\story_4-12-2009_pg7_16
.
Safe havens do not need to be “cleaned out”. Terrirists can plot from anywhere in the world (Atta, for instance, was a Saudi, educated in Germany, living and trained in the US). Protecting us from attack is the job of Homeland Security and local police. No amount if nation building in Afghanistan will aid their job.
.
Joe, you and your peers continue to make the same mistakes of 2003 when, as today, neoconservatives in the Pentagon and press spin scary stories in order to further their agenda. Don’t be complicit this time.

*should read: “the “surge” cannot work…”

‘…no more Mr. Ghandi’

Hello Klein, First get the spelling of Gandhi Right, you moron.

And this is height of stupidity on your side..comparing a chicago politician to a great man like Gandhi.
It’s time for you to read atleast a bit about indian freedom struggle, before shooting comparison with any tom,dick and harry.

Also may be time to check in into a rehab,all that afghan opium is getting into your head.

Everyone is understandably concerned with Pakistani Nukes and the possibility that a nuclear weapon is smuggled into the hands of a terrorist.
.
I must say again: the Taliban is not al Qaeda. The Taliban are a lose network of tribal leaders concerned with local politics. Al Qaeda is a Saudi-based group with international aspirations.
.
Also, having nuclear material doesn’t mean that you have a nuclear bomb. One would need a trigger and a means of deployment. Remember, miniature nukes and “suitcase nukes” don’t exist- its a fantastical lie. If nuclear material and a trigger (apparently stored separately) and a missile (?) were smuggled out of Pakistan, that would be an epic fail of our intel community and of our several-billion-dollar security arrangement with Pakistan. If it were smuggled into the US, that would be an epic fail of Homeland Security (and nearly impossible given our ability to detect nuclear radiation on commercial vessels via satellite). If it were somehow used against one of our cities, that would be an epic fail of the local police. And these failures would be completely independent of the Taliban.
.
Our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan will only serve to destabilize and radicalize the region. Joe should know better, we all should know better, given recent history.

* duh, should be “loose network of tribal…”