Politics As Usual

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Does Al Queda want bush to stay in office so America will get four more years of neocon pre-emptive warfare to excacerbate Arab/Muslim anger toward america

OR

Does Al Queda want Bush out of office so that we turn tail and begin a slow retreat from Iraq and the rest of the Arab world for which they can claim victory?

The answer to that question seems to be the answer to the question of whether Queda will attack us this Summer. If they attack us, Bush gets re-elected. If they don't, Kerry looks like the favorite. Kinda funny, isn't it? They claim we have them under our foot and persecuted, but it appears from where I'm sitting that those poor militatnt Islamic bastards will be the folks deciding who will be our next President.

ETA: So if they fuck themselves and re-elect W, its their own damn fault.

ETAII: I guess this gives Bush a real conflict. If the Arabs get him elected again, he'll be bombing his greatest political ally.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
But I find it noteworthy that club, Slave, Hank and Penske have all managed to post several times since I first posted the story without otherwise responding to it at all. Say nothing more, guys -- the silence is, I gather, an acknowledgemewnt that this is damning stuff if true.

The silence is because:

1) the revelation that we are now shifting our attentions and back to laying a heavy hand on Pakistan now that Iraq has been liberated and returned to self-rule is only newsworthy to people that read the LA Times. "Ty, I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling in this place"

2) That this administration, or any administration, would want to use all necessary means to get this guy prior to re-election is neither problematic or damning. Or better yet, let's hold off any further attempts until December.

3) "High-placed" insiders in the Pakistani goverment were also responsible for the uranium black market - so let's not put too much weight behind their facts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Does Al Queda want bush to stay in office so America will get four more years of neocon pre-emptive warfare to excacerbate Arab/Muslim anger toward america

OR

Does Al Queda want Bush out of office so that we turn tail and begin a slow retreat from Iraq and the rest of the Arab world for which they can claim victory?

The answer to that question seems to be the answer to the question of whether Queda will attack us this Summer. If they attack us, Bush gets re-elected. If they don't, Kerry looks like the favorite. Kinda funny, isn't it? They claim we have them under our foot and persecuted, but it appears from where I'm sitting that those poor militatnt Islamic bastards will be the folks deciding who will be our next President.

I just can't believe that AQ really cares about influencing our elections. From where they sit, Bush and Kerry must look pretty similar. If they kill a lot of people and make a splash, they can take credit for affecting the election whichever way it goes.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sometimes it's hard to tell whether you're playing stupid, or what. Musharraf did an awful lot for Bush, with substantial risks to himself. Pointing out that he was between a rock and a hard place does not change this. There are an awful lot of people in his country -- in his military and intelligence service -- who supported the Taliban and Islamists. They've tried to kill him multiple times since then.

Being in a position of being a target of politically motivated assassins is nothing new or unique for a leader of Pakistan and is not due solely to any favours he did for Bush.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Does Al Queda want bush to stay in office so America will get four more years of neocon pre-emptive warfare to excacerbate Arab/Muslim anger toward america

OR

Does Al Queda want Bush out of office so that we turn tail and begin a slow retreat from Iraq and the rest of the Arab world for which they can claim victory?

This was disussed eleswhere - and it was suggested that Bin Laden would want Bush to remain as he is more apt to "take the fight" to the Islamists and engage them in their worldwide quest for dominance.

Whereas Al Zaqwari would prefer Kerry as he would probably pull out of Iraq and allow the Islamist insurgency to thrive and drive the country into civil war.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sometimes it's hard to tell whether you're playing stupid, or what. Musharraf did an awful lot for Bush, with substantial risks to himself. Pointing out that he was between a rock and a hard place does not change this. There are an awful lot of people in his country -- in his military and intelligence service -- who supported the Taliban and Islamists. They've tried to kill him multiple times since then.

Rock and hard place means making a tough choice. that is not "rescuing us," it was doing the only thing he coould do to preserve his gov't. If Turkey had given us permission to launch ground troops would it have rescued us?

And until recently he has done very little, other than let us operate out of Pakistan during the initial Afghan attack. If he had refused we would have got done what we got done, he just would have been an enemy. My recollection is we bribed the shit out of him and co-opted his co-operation.

And you call me stupid? you're arguing about the secret quotes from Paki Intelligence people and then, 20 minutes later, you say There are an awful lot of people in his country -- in his military and intelligence service -- who supported the Taliban and Islamists.
If Sidd didn't have me on ignore, I bet you'd add a year to partnership track for posting this dreck.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I just can't believe that AQ really cares about influencing our elections. From where they sit, Bush and Kerry must look pretty similar.

Yes, that's right, we all look alike to them. You racist bastard!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
They are all to busy schtupping camels and playing with their flight simulators. I don't know where they get their money.

They get it from the oil revenues generated by Americans who drive gas guzzling cars. These oil revenues are funneled to so-called islamic "charities" that are nothing more than money laundering operations used to fund terrorism directed against non-muslims, particularly non-muslim Americans. Occasionally, a muslim gets killed by accident but they justify it by calling that guy/gal a martyr and say 'em is now in a better place.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I just can't believe that AQ really cares about influencing our elections. From where they sit, Bush and Kerry must look pretty similar. If they kill a lot of people and make a splash, they can take credit for affecting the election whichever way it goes.

They're cavemen, but they're shrewd cavemen. They have very few bullets left. Whatver they do must get the most political bang for the buck. They aren't in the indiscriminate killing business anymore. Their next hit has to count and create a reaction which really starts a WWIII between Islam and the West (which, of course, will never happen, but they believe is a real possibility... you can get pretty fucking deluded when all you do is read some religious nonsense rag and bomb-making guide, between bouts of beating the piss out of your wife and enforcing 4th century laws regarding beard length).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The silence is because:

1) the revelation that we are now shifting our attentions and back to laying a heavy hand on Pakistan now that Iraq has been liberated and returned to self-rule is only newsworthy to people that read the LA Times. "Ty, I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling in this place"

All along your guys have been saying that invading Iraq wouldn't slow down the war on terrorism, but now apparently it was obvious all along. Duly noted.

But there's more to that article than "laying a heavy hand on Pakistan."

2) That this administration, or any administration, would want to use all necessary means to get this guy prior to re-election is neither problematic or damning. Or better yet, let's hold off any further attempts until December.

The sooner the better, I say. And yet they seem to have left things 'til now.

So it doesn't strike you as disturbing that they are encouraging the Pakistanis to announce the capture of people during the Democratic National Convention. Where are the Republicans who were talking about Wag The Dog a few short years ago?

3) "High-placed" insiders in the Pakistani goverment were also responsible for the uranium black market - so let's not put too much weight behind their facts.

So what's their motive here?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you read that article and see nothing wrong? Tell the truth. The White House pressures the Pakistanis to produce a high-value target during the Democratic national convention and this is just "putting extra pressure on the Pakis"?

Would I rather the link not be there? Of course. But on a macro level, I'm more concerned with results.

Why weren't these things done last year? Why are we "stepping" up pressure now?

That's a fair question, but as you well know, Musharaff has a tenuous hold on power in Pak, and perhaps there were sensitivities related to that. Another Catch-22: You want the Admin to act multilateral and treat other countries like partners, except when you don't.

This is supposed to be a democracy after all, and I think that's what Dean was doing. But using instruments of foreign policy to advance a particular party or candidate's interest? That's not what Dean was doing at all, and it's odious. .

Dean was an opportunist. At the time, no one was questioning. Dean ran as an outsider and used this as a wedge issue to differentiate himself from the other Dems in the primaries. This is clear, particularly given his earlier statements on Iraq.

That's a Hobson's Choice, not a Catch-22.

Wrong.

Hobson's Choice: "An apparently free choice that actually offers no alternative."

Catch 22: "A no-win dilemma or paradox, similar to damned if I do, damned if I don't."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sidd, AG and I rely pretty exclusively on Catrin Darcy for fashion advice, etc. Until em straightened me out, I would wear overalls into the office on casual Fridays. If you ship him down, we'll have to introduce them.

Let's not go there. Besides, Slave already keeps asking to borrow my gold chains.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Nitpickery:
1) The allegations are pretty specific. They have dates and everything.
2) By "people over there", do you include everyone who is not over here? Like, those foreign intel services on the yellowcake story?

No, no. The yellowcake story falls into the "supports war on Iraq" exception. Didn't you get the memo?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Being in a position of being a target of politically motivated assassins is nothing new or unique for a leader of Pakistan and is not due solely to any favours he did for Bush.

Musharraf had previously been the driving force behind Pakistan's little invasion of Kashmir a few years ago, so he was not exactly on the Islamists shit list. In any event, noting that people have other reasons to blow him up does not change the fact that he has helped Bush out.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How?

Where the Fuck ah we?


(dating myself, I know)