Posts tonen met het label Global War On Terror. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Global War On Terror. Alle posts tonen

24 mrt 2009

Crazy Michele Bachmann Calls for Armed Revolution


Michele Marie Bachmann (born on April 6, 1956)is the Republican Representative of Minnesota's 6th congressional district. She is the third woman and first Republican woman to represent Minnesota in Congress. She defeated her Democratic challenger, Elwyn Tinklenberg, in the 2008 election in a race that had gained national attention following her controversial televised call for the media to investigate members of Congress for perceived anti-American bias, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

It's obviously just rhetoric from overly-excited far-right lawmakers. It's no doubt intended to fire up the activists (and donors) who help Republicans succeed.

But when Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) casually refers to elected Democratic officials as the "enemy," and nonchalantly refers to keeping her supporters "armed and dangerous," it's probably a good time to remind Republican lawmakers to turn the temperature a bit. (via the University of Minnesota and the Dump Bachmann blog.)

Bachmann appeared over the weekend on the First Team radio show with John Hinderaker and Brian Ward, speaking about the horrible stuff that the Democrats are doing: "I'm a foreign correspondent on enemy lines and I try to let everyone back here in Minnesota know exactly the nefarious activities that are taking place in Washington."

Bachmann also spoke out against the cap-and-trade proposals currently making their way through Washington, and how she'll be distributing information against it at an upcoming event in the district. "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back," said Bachmann. "Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing. And the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."

On the one hand, it seems clear that Bachmann was speaking figuratively. On the other hand, is it appropriate for a member of Congress to speak in any context about being armed for revolution?

No, probably not. But this seems to fit in with a larger trend. We have one GOP lawmaker saying the party should emulate the insurgency tactics of the Taliban. We have another arguing the party should position itself as "freedom fighters" taking on the "slide toward socialism."

And now Bachmann is throwing fuel on the fire of right-wing rage.

Obviously, Bachmann and other unhinged conservatives have the right to say what they please. But at a minimum, I think it's fair to describe this kind of talk from elected leaders in positions of authority as irresponsible.

2 jan 2009

Alberto Gonzales: "I am A Victim of the War On Terror"

by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left office in disgrace 16 months ago, and has kept a low profile since. His reputation has not improved in the interim -- Gonzales has struggled to find a law firm willing to hire him -- but at least he hasn't said or done anything ridiculous since his departure from public life.

Gonzales, however, is apparently interested in some kind of comeback. The former A.G. is writing a book about his tenure in the Bush administration and chatted with the Wall Street Journal about how mean everyone has been to him.

"What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service?" he said during an interview Tuesday, offering his most extensive comments since leaving government.

During a lunch meeting two blocks from the White House, where he served under his longtime friend, President George W. Bush, Mr. Gonzales said that "for some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror."

Is Gonzales really that confused about what he did that was "so fundamentally wrong"? I suppose he proved during multiple congressional hearings that his memory is similar to that of someone who's suffered serious head trauma, but Gonzales' list of scandals is hard to forget.

Just off the top of my head, there was the U.S. Attorney purge scandal, Gonzales signing torture memos, his conduct in John Ashcroft's hospital room, his oversight of a Justice Department that was engaged in widespread employment discrimination, and his gutting of the DoJ's Civil Rights Division. Gonzales was even investigated by the department's Inspector General on allegations of perjury and obstruction.

On warrantless-searches, the Military Commissions Act, policy on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales was a disaster. On managing the Justice Department, he filled his staff with Pat Robertson acolytes, feigned ignorance while structural disasters unfolded, and showed shocking tolerance for corruption and politicization of a department that, for the benefit of the nation and the rule of law, needed to maintain independence.

Andrew Cohen, the editor and chief legal analyst for CBS News, wrote a primer last year that Gonzales may want to reference to help refresh his memory.

By any reasonable standard, the Gonzales Era at the Justice Department is void of almost all redemptive qualities. He brought shame and disgrace to the Department because of his lack of independent judgment on some of the most vital legal issues of our time. And he brought chaos and confusion to the department because of his lack of respectable leadership over a cabinet-level department among the most important in the nation.

He neither served the longstanding role as "the people's attorney" nor fully met and tamed his duties and responsibilities to the constitution. He was a man who got the job not because he was supremely qualified or notably well-respected among the leading legal lights of our time, but because he had faithfully and with blind obedience served President George W. Bush for years in Texas (where he botched clemency memos in death penalty cases) and then as White House counsel (where he botched the nation's legal policy on torture).

That Gonzales feels sorry for himself now seems somehow predictable, but that doesn't make it any less pathetic.



20 sep 2008

Pakistani tribesmen organize private armies to fight Taliban


After weeks of fighting between the Pakistan Army and militants, the declaration of a month-long cease-fire may give the Taliban time to regroup.
Pakistan's Taliban might be getting stronger, wreaking havoc along the country's border with Afghanistan, but they are also growing wildly unpopular, inciting their own tribesmen to turn against them.
In the latest of a series of incidents, a lashkar, or private army comprised of Pakistani tribesmen, torched the houses of Taliban commanders in Bajaur, near the Afghan border, vowing to fight them until they are expelled, the Daily Times, a Pakistani newspaper, reports.
Tribesmen in Bajaur Agency's Salarzai tehsil on Sunday formed a private army (lashkar) of around 30,000 people against the local Taliban. A local jirga decided to form the lashkar in the wake of the increasing presence of the local Taliban in the area. The lashkar torched 14 houses, including the house of a local Taliban commander. Tribal elder Malik Munsib Khan, who heads the lashkar, said tribesmen would continue their struggle until the Taliban were expelled from the area, adding that anyone found sheltering Taliban militants would be fined one million [rupees] and his house would be torched. The tribesmen also torched two important centres of the Taliban in the area and gained control of most of the tehsil.

Dawn, another English-language daily in Pakistan, cited the lashkar at a much lower number.
The tribe has raised a lashkar of more than 4,000 volunteers. Malik Munasib Khan, who is leading uprising against the militants, said that the houses destroyed by the volunteers included one of militant leader Naimatullah, who had occupied several government schools and converted them into seminaries.

The development comes in the midst of the Pakistan Army's bombardment campaign, which has been unfolding for weeks in the tribal agency of Bajaur, a militant stronghold where some top commanders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden, are believed to be hiding. The bombardment, which has left some 400 militants dead according to The New York Times, highlights the rising power of the Taliban some seven years after they were first ousted from power in Afghanistan. But it also showcases why the Taliban are highly unpopular: Some 200,000 people have been displaced because of fighting, while dozens of citizens have been killed in clashes between the militants and military.
The Bajaur lashkar might be the largest of its kind, but it is not the only such force to have turned against the Taliban, according to recent reports. The News, a leading Pakistani daily, reported two weeks ago that several such lashkars have arisen throughout the North West Frontier Province, where the Taliban are increasing their hold.
In an unprecedented development, an armed lashkar in Buner district recently hunted down and killed six militants allegedly involved in killing cops in Kingargali. The operation shows that the people of Buner, Dir Upper and Dir Lower have stood up against the Taliban militants sneaking into these hitherto peaceful areas after Bajaur and Swat military operations.
A grand jirga of the elders of Maidan area in Lower Dir district's headquarters, Timergara, asked more than 150 foreign fighters and their tribal Taliban supporters to leave the area or face strong action from the local people.
A similar jirga in Barawal, a town of Dir Upper district, sharing border with Afghanistan, warned the militants to stay away from the area or they would take up arms against them.
The Buner incident took place on Khel Mountain in Shalbandai when hundreds of local people picked up arms, locally called 'Appa,' on information of the presence of the Taliban militants, who had brutally killed eight policemen in Kingargali last Friday.
The armed lashkar of 200 locals threw a cordon around the militants and asked them to surrender but the Taliban challenged it. The official sources told The News that the militants' refusal triggered a gunfight and they hurled hand grenades at the lashkar, prompting a retaliatory action from local armed men, which resulted in the killing of all the six militants.

Khalid Aziz, a Pakistani security expert, writes on his blog A Voice from Peshawar that these are important developments.

Today, the tribesmen are holding jirgas in Salarzai and other places against the militants. They have forced the militants to evacuate their areas since they are accused of bringing pain to the residents of Bajaur.... Thus a situation has arisen where the ascendency of the radicals has seen challenges for the first time by the communities with only marginal government assistance.

It is unclear what impact, if any, the lashkars will have on the fighting. But many fear that they will lose backing and momentum now that the central government has called for a one-month cease-fire with the militants in observance of Ramadan, the Muslim month of religious fasting, reports The New York Times.
On Saturday night, the Pakistani government declared a cease-fire in the area for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which begins here on Wednesday.
The cease-fire prompted concerns that whatever gains had been made against militants in the region would be squandered. Khalid Aziz, a former chief secretary of the North-West Frontier Province, said the Taliban would use the opportunity to regroup.
"Some communities have risen up against the militants, and the government has to capitalize on this, has to prop them up," he said. "They haven't done it."

.

5 aug 2008

The Armageddon Plan

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, along with then-President Gerald Ford, April 28, 1975.
Already during 1981-1992: Cheney and Rumsfeld Practice Secret Continuity of Government Plan, Later Activated on 9/11
Sources:
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0143034898/centerforcoop-20
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0318-14.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55877-2004Apr6
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1416535748/centerforcoop-20

Throughout the 1980s, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are key players in one of the most highly classified programs of the Reagan administration. Presently, Cheney is working as a Republican congressman, while Rumsfeld is head of the pharmaceutical company G. D. Searle. At least once per year, they both leave their day jobs for periods of three or four days. They head to Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington, DC, and along with 40 to 60 federal officials and one member of the Reagan Cabinet are taken to a remote location within the US, such as an underground bunker. While they are gone, none of their work colleagues, or even their wives, knows where they are. They are participating in detailed planning exercises for keeping government running during and after a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
Unconstitutional 'Continuity of Government' - This highly secret “continuity of government” (COG) program is known as Project 908. The idea is that if the US were under a nuclear attack, three teams would be sent from Washington to separate locations around the US to prepare to take leadership of the country. If somehow one team was located and hit with a nuclear weapon, the second or third team could take its place. Each of the three teams includes representatives from the State Department, Defense Department, CIA, and various domestic-policy agencies. The program is run by a new government agency called the National Program Office. Based in the Washington area, it has a budget of hundreds of million dollars a year, which grows to $1 billion per year by the end of Reagan’s first term in office. Within the National Security Council, the “action officer” involved in the COG program is Oliver North, who is a key figure in the mid-1980s Iran-Contra scandal. Reagan’s Vice President, George H. W. Bush, also supervises some of the program’s efforts. As well as Cheney and Rumsfeld, other known figures involved in the COG exercises include Kenneth Duberstein, who serves for a time as President Reagan’s chief of staff, and future CIA Director James Woolsey. Another regular participant is Richard Clarke, who on 9/11 will be the White House chief of counterterrorism (see (1984-2004)). The program, though, is extraconstitutional, as it establishes a process for designating a new US president that is nowhere authorized in the US Constitution or federal law. After George H. W. Bush is elected president in 1988 and the effective end of the Soviet Union in 1989, the exercises continue. They will go on after Bill Clinton is elected president, but will then be based around the threat posed by terrorists, rather than the Soviet Union (see 1992-2000). According to journalist James Mann, the participation of Rumsfeld and Cheney in these exercises demonstrates a broader truth about them: “Over three decades, from the Ford administration onward, even when they were out of the executive branch of government, they were never too far away; they stayed in touch with its defense, military, and intelligence officials and were regularly called upon by those officials. Cheney and Rumsfeld were, in a sense, a part of the permanent, though hidden, national security apparatus of the United States.”

3 aug 2008

Talk Show Host Calls for Murder


Michael Reagan says activist should be killed for treason

Nationally syndicated conservative radio host Michael Reagan called for the murder of a political activist on June 10. Reagan, a frequent guest on cable news shows and the son of President Ronald Reagan, singled out 9/11 activist Mark Dice by name and called several times for his assassination.
(Click here to listen to a 3 minute audio clip.)
Reagan had learned that political activists had reportedly been sending letters and DVDs to troops in Iraq, advancing the theory that the U.S. government had carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks. For promoting this unpopular view, the talk show host advocated that these activists should be killed as "traitors":
"We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that's what they are, and you shoot them dead. I'll pay for the bullets."
Even more troubling was the call for violence against a specific individual: "How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice."
Reagan subsequently had Dice on his show (6/16/08) as a guest and stated, “I’m sorry for what I said.” As an explanation, Reagan offered, "Sometimes radio hosts we get fired up and angry and we say things that are actually stupid, and we make mistakes."
Reagan's "mistakes," unfortunately, have repeatedly involved advocating murder to his audience. On August 15, 2006, Reagan called for violently killing babies who were reportedly being named for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah: “Naming their children 'Hezbollah,' you know what I’d get 'em for a first birthday? I’d put a grenade up their butts and light it. Happy Birth-day, baby. Bye bye.”
In response to a caller who pointed out that children are not responsible for the names they are given, Reagan repeatedly asserted, "So what’s wrong with killing the mothers and the babies?"
On December 5, 2005, Reagan said Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean "should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq War." (Watch clip on the Media Matters website) This was in response to Dean's statement (WOAI-AM, 12/5/05) that "the idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong."

Reagan's distributor, Radio America, also distributes the G. Gordon Liddy Show. Liddy, a former Nixon aide sent to prison for the Watergate break-in, also has a history of calling for violence over the airwaves, repeatedly advocating that listeners shoot federal law enforcement officials in the head. For example, on August 26, 1994, Liddy told his listeners:
"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bullet-proof vests.... They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches."

Needless to say, calls for violence against those one disagrees with are dangerous and corrosive to the public discussion. A responsible distributor has rules against such on-air death threats--and consequences when such rules are violated.



ACTION:
Ask Radio America to explain its policies regarding calls for violence on its nationally syndicated programming. Does the company really permit its hosts to call for murder on the air?

Reagan's show is broadcast on "more than 150 stations," according to Radio America. If the show broadcasts near where you live, contact the local station management and ask them to stop broadcasting death threats on your local public airwaves.

CONTACT:
Radio America President Jim Roberts
703-302-1000 ext 215.
Email: jroberts@radioamerica.org

15 jul 2008

The End Of a Murderous Beast


It is better that Barack Obama will not become the next President of the United States of America. Americans do not deserve such a honourable privilege. The American people is the most bloodthirsty monster ever on planet Earth. The murderous monster has to take some lessons.

Here you can find the poll
Half of the 300 million Americans want to kill all the 30 million Iraqi, the only way to win the war, while the Iraqi political parties are united now in a peaceful and orderly approach of their resurrection as a unity-state, without interference of Iran and Saudi Arabia and with the occupiers on leave within a certain schedule. Than the Iraqi War will be lost by the USA. About 94% of the Iraqi people want the foreign troops out of their country and prepare to fight for that.
They have good reasons.
The USA demands 60 permanent military bases in Iraq and legal immunity for their troops and contractors (the private slaughters who kill and rape). That’s an unlimited license to kill.
It is impossible to calculate what will cause more killings, the free hand to the foreigners without resistance of the people or a systematic genocide, but the last will faster be decided. To prevent the genocide it is reasonable for Russia, China and Europe to interfere and protect the Iraqi people with harsh military force, ruining the American economy and defeating them all over the world.
We can not tolerate that the whole population of a sovereign state will be wiped off the map for nothing more than “America’s honour.”
Will Barack Obama be able to defeat McCain in the elections and save the USA?
Yes he can, but Americans do not deserve that.
Half of the American population wants the genocide and that makes it the most bloodthirsty monster-people of the world since human mankind exists. They have to be exterminated for the safety of us all.
If Barack Obama will bring some change for a while, one day the monster will awake with their furious desire to kill again. For ones and all times we have to get rid of this cancer.

What has caused this hysterical desire for total genocide?
Well, it is simple and alone that they can not stand to lose an illegal war. That is only their honour, no need or ratio. For the Americans honour is the records of slaughtering people. They offer the lives of their youngsters to kill more of the others without any reason. The honour to be the most bloodthirsty killer is for most of the Americans the highest goal to achieve. And do not make mistakes, a part of them think that the young Barack Obama will do the job better than the old creep John McCain, a 100% mental disabled Vietnam veteran!

We sought that a peaceful and orderly transition to a democratic Iraq should satisfy the USA. It would be difficult. This year in his spring briefing general David Patreus said to see no light in the tunnel and McCain called that a tremendous success. During some months there was real success, but not thanks to the occupiers, who were at the side of the Iranian funded PM Nouri al Maliki fighting against the Mahdi Army of the mighty nationalist shiite leader Muqtada al Sadr who has the support of the whole opposition. Muqtada, a better politician than strong in armed forces, negotiated a cheese fire, The Russian President Putin granted Iran’s security in return for Iran’s not interfering in Iraq and by then Nouri al Maliki, his Badr party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq stood alone with the Prime Minister’s life in play, if and as soon as the foreign troops should leave the country. Muqtada al Sadr position was stronger than ever and Nouri al Maliki went the other, the nationalist side and refused to negotiate the American proposals, for the first time gaining full support of the majority in the parliament and Al Sadr. Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites were united!
And the light in the tunnel?
There was no tunnel anymore.
The foreign troops were bound to leave and the Prime Minister of the sovereign unity-state Iraq demanded a time schedule to achieve that end of the occupation.
One can say, the war has made things better in Iraq.
It had to be so.
It’s just what Barack Obama wanted and that point of view was popular in the USA. But things changed in a way where McCain can believe in. Fuel prices rise to unthinkable record highs and the American economy is in bad shape, while the troops sit on the third largest oil reserve in the world and are foreseen to be send home. That makes all the difference.

What is the profit of the war?
If there is no profit, the war is lost!
To gain profit you need a crime.
To call that honour, McCain has to become the next President and that will cause World War III and the end of America.

Overstating Our Fears


Glenn L. Carle was a member of the CIA's Clandestine Service for 23 years and retired in March 2007 as deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats. He has something to say to us, which is heard from his position outspoken a bit more convincing than my comments.
As it goes:
Sen. John McCain has repeatedly characterized the threat of "radical Islamic extremism" as "the absolute gravest threat . . . that we're in against." Before we simply accept this, we need to examine the nature of the terrorist threat facing our country. If we do so, we will see how we have allowed the specter of that threat to distort our lives and take our treasure.
The "Global War on Terror" has conjured the image of terrorists behind every bush, the bushes themselves burning and an angry god inciting its faithful to religious war. We have been called to arms, built fences, and compromised our laws and the practices that define us as a nation. The administration has focused on pursuing terrorists and countering an imminent and terrifying threat. Thousands of Americans have died as a result, as have tens of thousands of foreigners.
The inclination to trust our leaders when they warn of danger is compelling, particularly when the specters of mushroom clouds and jihadists haunt every debate. McCain, accepting this view of the threats, pledges to continue the Bush administration's policy of few distinctions but ruthless actions.
I spent 23 years in the CIA. I drafted or was involved in many of the government's most senior assessments of the threats facing our country. I have devoted years to understanding and combating the jihadist threat.
We rightly honor as heroes those who serve our nation and offer their lives to protect ours. We all "support the troops." Yet the first step for any commander is to understand the enemy. The next commander in chief should base his counterterrorism policies on the following realities:
We do not face a global jihadist "movement" but a series of disparate ethnic and religious conflicts involving Muslim populations, each of which remains fundamentally regional in nature and almost all of which long predate the existence of al-Qaeda.
Osama bin Laden and his disciples are small men and secondary threats whose shadows are made large by our fears. Al-Qaeda is the only global jihadist organization and is the only Islamic terrorist organization that targets the U.S. homeland. Al-Qaeda remains capable of striking here and is plotting from its redoubt in Waziristan, Pakistan. The organization, however, has only a handful of individuals capable of planning, organizing and leading a terrorist operation. Al-Qaeda threatens to use chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, but its capabilities are far inferior to its desires. Even the "loose nuke" threat, whose consequences would be horrific, has a very low probability. For the medium term, any attack is overwhelmingly likely to consist of creative uses of conventional explosives.
No other Islamic-based terrorist organization, from Mindanao to the Bekaa Valley to the Sahel, targets the U.S. homeland, is part of a "global jihadist movement" or has more than passing contact with al-Qaeda. These groups do and will, however, identify themselves with global jihadist rhetoric and may bandy the bogey-phrase of "al-Qaeda." They are motivated by hostility toward the West and fear of the irresistible changes that education, trade, and economic and social development are causing in their cultures. These regional terrorist organizations may target U.S. interests or persons in the groups' historic areas of interest and operations. None of these groups is likely to succeed in seizing power or in destabilizing the societies they attack, though they may succeed in killing numerous people through sporadic attacks such as the Madrid train bombings.
There are and will continue to be small numbers of Muslims in certain Western countries -- in the dozens, perhaps -- who seek to commit terrorist acts, along the lines of the British citizens behind the 2005 London bus bombings. Some may have irregular contact with al-Qaeda central in Waziristan; more will act as free agents for their imagined cause. They represent an Islamic-tinged version of the anarchists of the late 19th century: dupes of "true belief," the flotsam of revolutionary cultural change and destruction in Islam, and of personal anomie. We need to catch and neutralize these people. But they do not represent a global movement or a global threat.
The threat from Islamic terrorism is no larger now than it was before Sept. 11, 2001. Islamic societies the world over are in turmoil and will continue for years to produce small numbers of dedicated killers, whom we must stop. U.S. and allied intelligence do a good job at that; these efforts, however, will never succeed in neutralizing every terrorist, everywhere.
Why are these views so starkly at odds with what the Bush administration has said since the beginning of the "Global War on Terror"? This administration has heard what it has wished to hear, pressured the intelligence community to verify preconceptions, undermined or sidetracked opposing voices, and both instituted and been victim of procedures that guaranteed that the slightest terrorist threat reporting would receive disproportionate weight -- thereby comforting the administration's preconceptions and policy inclinations.
We must not delude ourselves about the nature of the terrorist threat to our country. We must not take fright at the specter our leaders have exaggerated. In fact, we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are.
==================

But even this is too scaring, while 9/11 was a false flag operation, an inside job and Al Qaeda did until now not dare to attack the USA homeland.