Saturday, July 07, 2007

U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05 - New York Times

U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05 - New York Times: "A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning."
I can hardly wait to see how the Republican spin machine - AKA FoxNews -- sums up this story. If you ever watched the channel -- especially after things starting going badly for the neocon crowd -- there was hardly a day when Clinton and "the liberals" weren't blamed for essentially causing 9/11 -- for not taking a shot at Osama back in the 90's.

Chris Wallace even tried to ambush Clinton with the "why didn't you take-out Osama when you had the chance?" question during an interview that was supposed to be about the Clinton Global Initiative.

I'm sure there will be a way to blame it on the Democrats and liberals... I just can't wait to hear the next level of shrill irrationality from the right.


Intellectual Insurgent said...

How do you even take stories like this, or the NYT for that matter, seriously anymore?

This is a bunch of mind candy, distracting, fearmongering that will get the sheeple talking for a few days.


skip sievert said...

I agree.
It`s staged nuuus, 1984 style.

Reign of Reason said...

My point is that FauxNews and others won't deride the decision not to take the opportunity to get OBL -- like they did when they had Richard Clarke or Bill Clinton on...

It's just a clear demonstration of the blinders the rabid-right uses to filter their world-view.

Now I know you both don't see the difference between the right and the left -- but I do...

Intellectual Insurgent said...

SO what if they won't deride it? What difference does it make?

OBL is a staged boogeyman who serves the military-industrial complex. If they caught him (assuming he's really on the run), the government would have to manufacture another boogeyman just like him.

Reign of Reason said...

Well, that's the point: I don't believe "all" potential leaders would construct another bogeyman.

The republican's are far more likely to do so -- and need to do so.

Yes, there are problems with the system... and it is very corrupt. But I'm worried about Americans dying overseas to support these crack-heads. I don't think all of our potential leaders have the same inclinations.

skip sievert said...

Your wrong RoR
The system can operate in only one way.
War is an essential formula.
We have been on a war footing since 1948 when we were taken over by industry combining with politics to form Corporatcy.
We as a culture are like Nazi Germany now or Mussolini led Italy.
You are a victim of belief system brainwashing.
You have been caught in the belief system NET.
We do not have a democracy. That is something that happened in the 5th cent.BC in Athens.
You are being a 'believer' now in abstract jingoism.
The insurgent is trying to tell you something.
It is not that hard to be tricked. Propaganda and brainwashing works wonders.

Intellectual Insurgent said...


All leaders construct boogeyman. Some just sell better than others. Lest you forget that Clinton oversaw the destructive sanctions regime that murdered half a million Iraqi children.

Why? To soften up the country for the oil companies.

All leaders answer to the same corporate interests. ROR, until you grasp that fundamental fact, your will run around in circles.

Reign of Reason said...

Some leaders inherent them.

I don't think Clinton created Saddam as a bogey man. He did continue the sanctions and did bomb that country. It was under the auspices of the UN and not a unilateral move. It wasn't designed to keep the military industrial complex happy. Maybe the self-righteous public, but our adventures in Iraq pre-Bush were of a very different tone.

You skepticism is disheartening. We still live in a society in which we (the people) have a reasonable chance of choosing a responsible leader -- a leader whom the people want. All it takes in involvement of the individual citizen. Your comments indicate you don't believe this... and if you don't, how do you suggest getting to a place where we can?

Pointing out inept leadership is one thing -- but saying the system is fundamentally broken without a path to something better is just bitching.

d nova said...

thanx 4 running this. n don' 4get carter's aborted hostage rescue along w/ clinton's supposed failures criticized by gops.

as 4 bin laden as bogy, i cn't quite go along w/ it. the bogy is the "war on terror."

let's not dignify 'em by playing in2 their fantasies. they're not warriors, they're a gang o bloodthirsty killers who need 2 b tracked down n brought 2 justice.

Intellectual Insurgent said...


US adventures in Iraq pre-Bush were of a different tone? Dude, what are you smoking, because I want some. :-) Imperialism is imperialism and just because Clinton was more polite in the language he used to justify imperialism didn't make him any better.

The only difference there may be is that we are past the tipping point now. Bush and his cronies aren't inept. Not at all. They are looting the country and the American people are distracted with "debates" about nonsense like who did what with Osama when. Did you hear Cheney's investments focus on assets that benefit from a weakened dollar?

We were in big trouble as soon as Nixon took the US off the gold standard and entered into a devil's pact with the House of Saud and we are now experiencing the consequences of those decisions.

Cause and effect.

If you can explain how we undo the damage of being trillions in debt to China, Japan, et al., I'd love to hear it. If you can tell me one leader who would be willing to abolish corporations, I might be more optimistic.

But you cannot deny the fundamental law of cause and effect. We are experiencing the effects of years of destructive imperialist policies and there is no magician in 2008 that's going to be able to save this ship.

America is past the point of no return. We have a populace that is stupid, apathetic and completely under the control of the corporations. It is only a matter of time before the house of cards called our economy will come crashing down in front of us and what you should be doing is preparing for that day. That's what Bush and all his cronies are doing.

Buy gold, store water and get lots of ammo, because we're going to have a nation of people with a 6th grade education, fully indoctrinated by Fox News and armed to the teeth.

Your quaint, charming belief that we can undo the damage of the past 40 years is the stuff that after-school specials are made of. But it ain't realistic.

skip sievert said...

Bravo Insurgent.
RoR, you have just been given a real education.
You are a victim of mass hypnosis. You are in a cult. The cult is manufactured, and totally unreal.
The system loves people like you. It is how the status quo is maintained.

I have to say that you are either ignorant or stupid. That is being blunt. Ignorance can be educated out.
There are lots of alternatives to the system we have now.
I have consistently mentioned the most creative one, Technocracy.

I would take the insurgents advice very literally. She is right, and plain spoken.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

RoR -

Read this article -

Reign of Reason said...

Well II... I have to disagree: there is a BIG difference between the Clinton administration continuing pre-existing sanctions against Iraq -- sanctions that were put in place via a consensus of nations (including many Arab nations) and the imperialistic war started by GW.

Considering cost: the cost in troops and $$ was insignificant to maintain the sanctions. There were fewer troops/sailors in the gulf than go to work in the pentagon each morning -- and the cost was borne by our "allies" (inc Egypt, Saudi, etc.) in the region: they paid for the sanctions.

Now -- was it a good idea to maintain the sanctions? I don't think it was, but they were the result of a UN decision... Not a gambit to payoff corporate donors and increase American hegemony in the region.

The sanctions regime was NOT driven by the previous administrations desire to appease the military industrial complex -- it did implement them, but they were mandated by the resolution and on-going. Could we have pulled out? Yes -- but there would have been an political back-lash: maybe its something Clinton should have done...

Are both political parties corrupt: of course... Are both equally culpable for the disastrous path we are now on? No -- again, the previous administration (and congress) at least started to curb spending and get control of the budget process... They actually focused on the economy and inequality to a much larger extent than our current "compassionate conservative".

Were there other issues? Of course, (e.g. - NAFTA, etc) but to not distinguish between the outright criminals in power now and those that came before -- or may come after -- is in err.

There's a lot to fix in this country - and some of what you argue is needed (corp regulation): but equating crime to negligence isn't right either.

Reign of Reason said...

II - I read the article...

I can't believe you pointed me to a web-site that discusses aliens and the end of the earth based on the Mayan calenders.

While the author does make some good points about the value of the dollar's dependency on oil markets, much of it is bogus.

Harkening back to the "gold standard" is silliness: money has "value" because we all agree it has value. The "gold standard" is a red-herring: gold has "value" for exactly the same reason -- there's nothing instrinsically valuable about gold as opposed to paper money.

The entire system works because you and I agree that we'll accept "notes" for our labor... those notes are redeemable for goods.

Is the system in trouble? Yes -- not because it's not backed by gold, but because of many of the decisions our politicians have made with regard to trade regulation, labor, and global markets. We are supporting the system artificially by policies that weaken the $$ in the world market. That is what's wrong... Is the system sustainable? Yes, but we are not on a sustainable path: we need major changes in policy and the way we interact with other nations and their financial systems. In that sense, the author makes some good points... but in general, he knows less about finance and the global economy than I do... which is saying a lot.

I'm surprised you pointed me at this...

Intellectual Insurgent said...

RoR -

I don't know what the rest of the website is about, but the article is on point.

The difference between gold and notes is that gold is finite. According to your logic, the treasury can keep printing dollars ad infinitum and everything will continue to be okay. That's called inflation and every policy attempting to hold it off is going to make things even worse.

The entire system works because you and I agree that we'll accept "notes" for our labor... those notes are redeemable for goods.

And what happens when those notes don't have the same value? In case you need a lesson about inflation, read up about how Germany was doing economically when Hitler first ascended the throne.

Honestly, I am trying to figure out your argument and I have no idea what your point is. That our system is great, but a few people have fucked it up along the way?

You haven't refuted one point the author made. You've just attacked him personally and called into question his conclusions because he isn't from the NYT.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

BTW - here's Ron Paul's explanation re: the value of gold. He says virtually the same thing.

But if you want to keep crying about what the Republicans are doing while the Democrats are all hard for war with Iran, you'll find plenty of people who will indulge this delusion that there is a difference between the parties.

Reign of Reason said...

My "argument" is that a gold-standard isn't necessarily a good thing. I agree that there are problems of monitary and foreign policy -- but they can be addressed within the framework we have. The system isn't fundamentally doomed.

I don't argue for printing money as needed -- I realize this causes inflation.

However, a gold standard doesn't provide a "stable" foundation for the "value of money" either -- read:

At least the source I point you at has some credentials -- I can't find ANY for either of the articles you point me at -- other than the latter being a libertarian.

There is a difference in parties... if you think the democrats would start a preemptive war with Iran -- well, I disagree.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Like I asked before -

If you can explain how we undo the damage of being trillions in debt to China, Japan, et al., I'd love to hear it. If you can tell me one leader who would be willing to abolish corporations, I might be more optimistic.

skip sievert said...

This is a good example of someone being under the spell.
The system is not going to work anymore.
It is an antique.
Money will not work in relation to the hightech high energy culture we have.
The reward and punishment of 'work' only upholds the class caste system in a Price System.
Mechanical energy replaced human work many years ago.

People who wish to stick with a dead horse, have to get used to the idea of the next most probable.
The next most probable is the destruction of this society.
You are endorsing this system RoR.
That is fantasy land 1984 amusement park thinking.