Mr Arkin,after spending 12 billion dollars and eight years in pursuit of these militants,the Bush administrations and its ally in this counter terrorism are still at the square one and it is a fact that you will display another 100 billin dollars and remain on the same zero point.this defeat of the dictator is not because the set back and engagement of Americans in Iraq but it is the behaviour and morality of the Pakistani military and ISI. modern and sophisticated arms and bravery are different things and when cowardliness penetrates into principle and morality it gets the shape of a brokerage, for as an evidence a Military when has not the dignity and honesty or the guts to defend its own land and gets hand cupped at Pulton ground in the quantity of 98000, then how this Army sacrifices their lives,no matter if Washington pay them trillions of the dollars.The regional states are fully aware that the islamists are in no need to over run the Pakistani nuclear installations but, it is the Islamabad which has nuclear cooperation and coordination deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran and according this understanding 260 of Pakistani nuclear technicians are assisting in Iranian nuclear sites along with exchange of nuclear stockfiles between the two countries. Is it not the high time for the U.S. to take a serious and positive step to prevent any disastrous situation before it is too late?.

Hmmmm, your theory rests completely on the fact that we have no influence over Musharaf Plainfaco. HERE ARE ALL THE WAYS WE HAVE PRESSURED MUSHARAF SUCCESSFULLY:

1. MUSHARAF CUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TALIBAN VERY PUBLICLY AFTER THE TALIBAN HAD A VERY TIGHT RELATIONSHIP WITH PAKISTAN,

2. Musharaf allowed us to fly over his country we wouldn't have even been able to conduct a serious air campaign without those fly over rights

3. Condi Rice pressured Musharaf publicly for months to let his archenemy Bhutto back in and to accept her in a power sharing agreement

4. Musharaf has now let in US troops, when he is much weaker than he was in 2002 and George Bush is also much weaker; why is it possible now, and why was it impossible in 2002 when we had the whole world behind us.

5. Musharaf never wanted to let go of his position as army chief and only through intense pressure did he resign the title recently

6. WE HAVE A TEN BILLION DOLLAR AID PACKAGE TO MUSHARAF, THAT IS LOT OF LEVERAGE IN IT OF ITSELF WE NEVER CHOSE TO USE IT

PLAINFACTO, YOU JUST WILL MAKE ANY EXCUSE POSSIBLE TO ABSOLVE THE NEOCONS AND BUSH OF ANY MISTAKES. You will blame the military generals, you will blame foreign dictators that have no duty to protect us, you will blame everyone and anyone, but you will not admit that this president dropped the ball. It is wildly apparent that his lack of interest in the Afghanistan and Pakistan theater was basically a knife driven right into the back of America and the victims of 9-11. The facts are there you just are not man enough to admit that your Feuhrer is greedy, dishonest, and a bumbling fool. He has damaged America 100 times more than Ahmadinejad and Osama combined.

AND YOUR THEORY IS BASED COMPLETELY ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE NO LEVERAGE OVER MUSHARAF, IN FACT WE HAVE PLENTY OF LEVERAGE OVER MUSHARAF AND OUR TROOPS ARE NOW GOING IN TO PAKISTAN.

I don't like Hillary and I wouldn't vote for her, even against psycho Giuliani or Mccain, so there goes another one of your silly theories. In an election between Hillary and Joseph Stalin, I would abstain from voting. Even if Uncle Joe got up on stage at the debate with a crazy gleam in his eyes and said:"I will use the power of the presidency to crush my internal enemies."

//I know the most logical answer is that Bush the most powerful man in the world had no influence or that he failed because of his overwhelming respect for the sovereignty of muslim nations.//

If he had authority over Mush, then you would complain that the US tries to run the world. If he respects the sovereinty of their country and the situation doesn't go the way we want it to, he is wrong again. From your perspective, there is no pleasing you. But that is what you want; isn't it?

You are most certainly the Mozart of illogical, counterintuitive excuse making. Bush dropped the ball and you will do anything in the world to defend your warmongering president and his warmongering ideology. It is very sad, but the party and president you support has been a disaster for this country and the world, and you just aren't man enough to admit it. I know Bush as president was just a helpless patsy of Musharaf and his military generals who let him down. And if our president is so easily duped by a two-bit dictator, well then that may be an even more damning indictment of this man. So Bush basically has given Musharaf 10 billion in aid for nothing.

//NO YOUR ANSWER DOESN'T ANSWER ANYTHING AND ASSUMES THAT BUSH HAD NO INFLUENCE OVER MUSHARAF, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT,//

It is correct, and that is the problem. The US has very little influence with Mush; but we cannot just dump him either. The situatuion is like holding a wolf by the ears; you don't like it, but you dare not let it go. I can't say that I trust Mush, but we are stuck with him. I don't like Mush, you have read what I had written before - you know this - so I'm not going to repeat myself. I suppose if a criminal democrat like Hillary gets into office, these two criminals - Hillary and Mush - will work out a deal that will end up screwing the US better than anyboby else could. I assume that is what you want; right?

No, anyway you cut it, this administration is responsible for not scouring Afghanistan more intensely when the trail was hot. This administration is responsible for either not pressuring Musharaf hard enough at the time or for not yanking his aide when he didn't do what he promised. LIKE I SAID BUSH OFFERS MUSHARAF MEGABILLIONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE IF HE DOESN'T COOPERATE BUSH WILL TILT AGGRESSIVELY TO INDIA, ARM INDIA TO THE TEETH AND CUT OFF ALL AID, AND YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT MUSHARAF WOULDN'T LET OUR TROOPS IN?

I know the most logical answer is that Bush the most powerful man in the world had no influence or that he failed because of his overwhelming respect for the sovereignty of muslim nations. I HAVE TO SAY YOUR LAST POST WAS ALMOST AS RIDICULOUS AND LAUGHABLE AS YOUR BUSH AS THE MODERN LINCOLN COMPARISON.

WHAT? GEORGE BUSH IS LEGENDARY FOR RESPECTING THE SOVEREIGNTY OF MUSLIM NATIONS, RIGHT? AND EVEN IF YOUR ANALOGY IS TRUE, LETS SAY MUSHARAF MADE A PROMISE TO BUSH TO GET AQ ON HIS OWN, WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT HE WASN'T DOING BUBKUS WHAT DID BUSH DO? NOTHING HE WAS TOO BUSY TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE IRAQI INSURGENCY. IF MUSHARAF WAS SO IMMUNE TO BUSH'S PRESSURE WHY DID HE TURN ON THE TALIBAN THAT WAS ALLIED TO VERY POWERFUL ELEMENTS WITHIN PAKISTAN? WHY DID HE COOPERATE WITH THE ORIGINAL INVASION, AND BUSH REWARDED HIM WITH A BIG AID PACKAGE? AND IF MUSHARAF MADE A PROMISE TO BUSH HE DIDN'T LIVE UP TO, WHY DID BUSH NOT THREATEN TO PULL THE MASSIVE MULTIYEAR PACKAGE OF AID HE IS CURRENTLY RECEIVING? AND WHY DID BUSH ACCEPT MUSHARAF'S EMPTY PROMISES ANYWAY?

No the more logical conclusion is that Bush was the one who didn't commit everything he had to rooting out Al Quaeda, your conclusions are completely unsupported by everything we know about what happened, and completely illogical, Bush didn't want to give Musharaf an ultimatum, he wanted to respect Pakistan's sovereignty, and he trusted Musharaf. Come on, I don't even think you believe that load of crap, are talking about the same George Bush? Some of our soldiers actually went into Afghanistan through Pakistan during the initial build up. Bush did get Musharaf to support the initial invasion and to cut off the Taliban who had been their close ally during the initial phase of the war. So Musharaf very publically through his lot in with the US against the Islamists, Bush is the one who didn't get it done. You expect me to believe that the most powerful man in the world, who was much stronger in 2002 than now couldn't have put a deal together with Musharaf on this?

AND AGAIN WHY DID WE NEVER HAVE MORE THAN 30,000 TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN WHERE WE NEEDED TO DO AN INTENSIVE MAN HUNT, AND WE HAVE 5 TIMES MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ WHERE WE KNOW THE SENIOR LEADERSHIP OF THE ORIGINAL AFGHAN BASED AL QUAEDA DID NOT RESIDE? WHAT ABOUT TORA BORA?

No, your answer of Bush taking Musharaf's word is even more damning to Bush, why did he rely so heavily on a man that you yourself say is unreliable? Why would he trust our security to a foreign dictator? And if Musharaf doesn't live up to his promises what exactly has Bush done about it(I don't mean military force)?

NO YOUR ANSWER DOESN'T ANSWER ANYTHING AND ASSUMES THAT BUSH HAD NO INFLUENCE OVER MUSHARAF, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT, MUSHARAF GOT A HUGE AID PACKAGE BECAUSE HE AIDED THE US AND TURNED ON THE TALIBAN. IF NOT THEN WHY DID BUSH JUST THROW 10-20 BILLION IN AIDE HIS WAY AND REMOVE PAKISTAN FROM THE SANCTIONS IT WAS UNDER FOR TESTING A NUKE, DID HE DO ALL OF THAT FOR NOTHING?

No plainfacto, you are a war cheerleader, and you try to pretend that you just love America and want to see it safe. But you are just a neocon apologist, who blames all of Bush's mistakes on other people and pretends that whatever idiot decision Bush made was either someone else's decision or that Bush had no other choice in the universe but to make the decisions he did. I am sorry, even if Bush trusted Musharaf, and Musharaf betrayed him as you claim there is plenty of culpability on his part. You mean this dunce gave away 10 billion of our money and got nothing in return? You mean Bush respected Pakistan's sovereignty so much he could not apply economic or political leverage?

I am sorry your answer does not in the least answer anything, and in fact raise even more questions. And your answer still doesn't resolve the fact that Bush sent a skeleton force into Afghanistan, what was he saving the rest of the half million man army for? I think we all know the answer to that.

//Come on Plainfacto, America ignored the will of the United Nations General Assembly, as well as the will of the
Security Council itself!//

The UNSC left it an open-end object; or they would have said differently and resolved the Iraq/Hussein issue. And documented it. They didn't. So Hussein flaunted the UNSC, and we had the right to go back for that very explicit reason, and we did. There are many people on this site that refuse to accept that as fact. I don't take a popular side; I speak my mind and tell the truth.
Do you think I want us to be there?
You would be wrong if you said 'yes'.

Again Farzad, we went into Iraq because Hussein had no respect for the UNSC's admonishments;

Plainfactom
I thought it was the other way around,
and the United States of America
went into Iraq because we did
not have any respect for
UNSC's adminishments,
the IAGEA, Kofi,
or Hans Blix!

Come on Plainfacto, America ignored
the will of the United Nations
General Assembly, as well
as the will of the
Security Council
itself!

I have jobs for Bush and Cheney after we
have been deprived of their services.
If they can get elected Bush
should become the President
of Iraq; Cheney should
become the President
of Pakistan; and
for the heck
of it Condi
can be the President of Iraq!

Why? They obviously want to run these countries anyway. What the heck,
bring back Rumsfool back and
let's see if we help him
to become the elected
President of Syria.
Mr. Assad won't
mind.

As a matter of fact, The Rev will make
the first donation to
each one of their
campaigns!

//You also have no answer as to why Musharaf wasn't made an offer he couldn't refuse?//

No I don't - and neither do you. Nobody does - except for Mush - and he has danced and skirted the issue. He claims that he was going to 'do it his way'. His way, was to do nothing at all. And we cannot make a sovereign nation do anything. Is there some reason you cannot accept a straight answer?

//LETS IGNORE MUSHARAF FOR ONE SECOND FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, IF HE WAS INTERESTED IN SCOURING AFGHANISTAN WHILE THE TRAIL WAS STILL HOT, YOU THINK HE WOULD SEND IN A COUPLE OF DIVISION AND SOME SPECIAL OPS?//

And you would have still objected to anything he would have done. Who are you kidding?

Noboby could have gone into Tora Bora; that is why UBL went there. I'm sure UBL group didn't fair so well - either. Nobody could have; not the Paki's, not us - nobody. The high elevation, the climate, and the seasonal weather was all that saved his bony ass. We had a large portion of the Taliban and AQ that ran for sanctuary in a sovereign country - Pakistan. We got 'screwed by Mush; it still comes back to him...

Bush is not comfortable giving people ultimatums, really, are we talking about the same guy? Bush could have easily been in Pakistan in 2002, he just didn't try hard enough, or he wasn't shrewd enough, and you don't know that an offer like the one I discussed was ever made. And since nothing has ever been reported on the issue, and other information has come out in leaks, I doubt that it was ever tried in the manner I discussed.

Pakistan's enemy is India, and having the US open up its massive arms industry to India and simultaneously freezing Pakistan out, in it of itself might have been enough. Bush offers Musharaf the deal I am talking about or something like it, and Musharaf would drive up those mountains himself and eat Osama's heart raw. HOW COME HE GOT A YES OUT OF MUSHARAF NOW, WHEN BOTH PARTIES ARE WEAKER AND MUSHARAF IS IN DEEP TROUBLE WITH THE ISLAMISTS?

LETS IGNORE MUSHARAF FOR ONE SECOND FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, IF HE WAS INTERESTED IN SCOURING AFGHANISTAN WHILE THE TRAIL WAS STILL HOT, YOU THINK HE WOULD SEND IN A COUPLE OF DIVISION AND SOME SPECIAL OPS? NO, BUSH COMMITTED ONE FIFTH OF THE FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN THAT HE COMMITTED TO IRAQ. AND IN TERMS OF A MANHUNT OR SEARCH MISSIONS A LARGE NUMBER OF BOOTS ON THE GROUND MEANS A GREAT DEAL. AT THE VERY LEAST HE WOULD HAVE ROUNDED UP MORE LOWER AND MID-LEVEL TALIBAN AND AL QUAEDA AND THE PRISONERS HE CAPTURED COULD HAVE GIVEN HIM REAL INTEL ON THE ORGANIZATION AND THE LEADERSHIPS WHEREABOUTS. Instead he paid bounties to mercenaries to track our enemies and the mercenaries produced a very low quality low value prisoners. Many of whom we had to release because they where just kidnapped for the bounty and really had little or no role in Al Quaeda.

In short, you have no answer other than blaming the military and generals for Bush's mistakes as to why we never had an adequate force in Afghanistan to capture the maximum number of Al Quaeda prisoners. You also have no answer as to why Musharaf wasn't made an offer he couldn't refuse?

THE ONLY LOGICAL ANSWER AS TO WHY BUSH NEVER COMMITTED THE MANPOWER AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES THAT AFGHANISTAN NEEDED TO GET THE BEST POSSIBLE RESULT IS THAT HE ALREADY HAD PLANS FOR THE MONEY AND MEN IN SOME OTHER THEATER. IN SOME OTHER THEATER WHERE HE COULD GET SOME FINANCIAL RETURN ON HIS INVESTMENT, AND WHERE HE COULD GET THE MAN THAT SHOT MISSILES AT HIS LOVE CHILD ISRAEL AND WHO TRIED TO KILL HIS DADDY.

//In regards to Pakistan, you are telling me if Bush told Musharaf that he had two choices; letting a US force into the border region and getting lets say 40 billion in aid over the next few years on top of what we were already giving him, or in the alternate the US would tilt toward India, withdraw all military assistance from Pakistan and sell the Indians anything they wanted from our arsenal, you think Musharaf would or could say no?//

That is what I am saying, it was a matter of trust and Mush woudn't have done it for 100 bullion. He refused to do AS WE ASKED; we can't TELL him to do a friggin' thing. He is NOT 'playing ball' will us; he is acting as a sovereign nation - he has the right to do that. WE didn't give him an ultimatum - we ASKED. It was up to Mush to folow thru - and he did not. He said 'yes' but he did nothing. We aren't going to force him to do anything - we can't; whatever we get out of that jerk is voluntary.

Please right before the invasion Saddam said he would allow the inspectors in and gave in to Bush's demands and Bush moved the goal posts, and said that Saddam and his sons had to go into exile. He wouldn't take yes for an answer.

In regards to Pakistan, you are telling me if Bush told Musharaf that he had two choices; letting a US force into the border region and getting lets say 40 billion in aid over the next few years on top of what we were already giving him, or in the alternate the US would tilt toward India, withdraw all military assistance from Pakistan and sell the Indians anything they wanted from our arsenal, you think Musharaf would or could say no? You don't have any information on this issue other than that the Bush administration reportedly asked, how did they ask, how much of a vice did they put on Musharaf, why did Musharaf agree to let special ops in just a couple of months ago. After 9-11, Bush was much stronger than he is now, we were richer, and Musharaf was also in a stronger position. If Bush offered Musharaf 5% of the money we spent in Iraq, and threatened him with a massive aid military aid plan for India Musharaf would have no choice.

The president of the US had a lot more moral capital, financial capital, military capital, and political capital behind him in 2002. How come he got a yes from Musharaf in 2007, and he couldn't get that yes in 2002? Bush was already planning his Iraq invasion for Israel and Oil and therefore needed to focus his energy on Iraq.

Even if you just look at Afghan operations Bush never made a serious effort to catch Osama while he was still in Afghanistan. Why didn't he send the 101 and 82 airborne when US military intel believed that we had Osama locked down at Tora Bora. Those units specialize in rapid reaction and their motto is that they can mobilize and be anywhere in the world in 24-48 hours. Instead he relied on a bunch of Northern Alliance mercenaries who understandably were not too enthused about charging up a mountain in the dead of winter to fight suicidal jihadis to do our bidding. THEY BASICALLY PULLED A "LETS NOT AND SAY WE DID" COLLECTED THEIR DOLLARS AND WENT HOME. During the whole Tora Bora battle we had about 1,000 troops there, not even a regiment was dedicated to the task.

And your complaints still don't explain how Afghanistan only deserved 30,000 troops, if you want to scour the country to round up bad guys you need to put boots on the ground. I would personally not have criticized Bush if he took 4,000 casualties in AFGHANISTAN AND SENT NEARLY 200,000 TROOOPS THERE TO SCOUR EVERY MOUNTAIN AND CAVE IN THE COUNTRY. INSTEAD BEFORE THE TALIBAN HAD EVEN FALLEN WE STARTED HEARING GRUMBLINGS THAT IRAQ WAS NEXT.

BUSH NEEDED TO UP THE ANTE WITH MUSHARAF LETTING HIM NO THAT ALL NON-MILITARY POWER AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE US GOVERNMENT WOULD BE PUT TO USE EITHER MAKING HIS LIFE HELL OR MAKING HIM THE RICHEST DICTATOR IN SOUTH ASIA. IF BUSH TOLD MUSHARAF I AM GOING TO GIVE INDIA ENOUGH WEAPONERY TO HAVE A HUGE STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE OR YOU ARE GOING TO LET ME PUT A DIVISION OR TWO ON THAT BORDER, MUSHARAF WHO HAD A MUCH MORE STABLE DOMESTIC SITUATION WOULD HAVE TO BE AN ABSOLUTE MORON TO SAY NO.

I too remember the events of that time vividly and Bush never put the boots on the ground in Afghanistan required for a nationwide manhunt, Instead most of the prisoners we captured where brought in by the Northern Alliance for money, and not surprisingly these mercenary warlords would round up a goat herder, tell Bush he was Taliban, collect some cash and the poor soul would be sent to Guantanamo and probably to this day he hasn't seen the light of day. AND DON'T BLAME THE GENERALS, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, A POLITICAL APPOINTEE HAS A HUGE SAY ON PRIORITIES AND ON TROOP DEPLOYMENTS. RUMSFELD PUSHED FOR A LIGHT FORCE IN BOTH AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ BECAUSE OF HIS THEORY THAT GROUND FORCES WERE BASICALLY OBSOLETE. HE STRIPPED THE ARMY OF FUNDING AND OF DIVISIONS DIRECTLY BEFORE 9-11 AND MOVED THE MONEY INTO HIGH TECH WEAPONS SYSTEMS. This isn't the military's screw up, they fought their butts off.This is a result of Rumsfeld and Bush not focusing the full spectrum of US diplomatic and military power on that vital border land, principally because he had visions of Iraqi Oil contracts dancing through his head, and because his Israeli paymasters saw an opportunity to get even with Saddam.

//I don't buy for a second that Musharaf was pressed enough to let US forces in//

Too bad; I remember this incident well. We sent quite an envoy to Pakistan and pleaded with Mush to let us in. We pessed as hard as we could - in truth. Mush insisted that he alone - with only Pakiastani forces - would do the action. We well lulled by the promises and prospect that it would be a different and sovereign government that would also take up the responsibility against AQ. Mush never folowed thru.

//Bush was already planning the Iraq war and needed the extra troops for his plans of conquest//

Bush was confident that Mush and Pakistan would stand on their word. As it turns out, Mush's words don't amount to much.

Again Farzad, we went into Iraq because Hussein had no respect for the UNSC's admonishments; he clearly violated every previously agreed upon restriction that he had previously promised to keep. Hussin was the reason we entered Iraq - not Bush as you claim.

But if you could not bash Bush - I am sure you will come out of the closet and attack the US directly - regardless of what president or politcal party may be in power in the US.

I don't buy for a second that Musharaf was pressed enough to let US forces in, Bush was already planning the Iraq war and needed the extra troops for his plans of conquest. Musharaf gave his consent to us going into Pakistan in 2007, why wouldn't he have given that consent when he was in a stronger position and so was George Bush 2002. I think Bush made a huge mistake, if he used every diplomatic and leverage tool in his arsenal Musharaf would have given in, Musharaf turned on the Taliban after a decade long involvement with the ISI for the money and aid we offered him. Bush should have been willing to double and triple that offer to get at Al Quaeda in the border region. THE ONLY ONE THAT SPEWS HATEFUL PROPAGANDA IS THIS CURRENT ADMINISTRATION WHO SPLICES UP AND DUBS IN THREATS THAT NEVER OCCURRED INTO AUDIO TAPES IN ORDER TO SCARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING BUSH NEVER COMMITTED A SIZABLE FOR OF TROOPS TO THE AFGHAN THEATRE OSAMA'S LAST KNOWN LOCATION, HE SENT A BUNCH OF MERCENARIES TO CATCH HIM WHEN WE HAD HIM CORNERED IN TORA BORA.

//I wonder why, we didn't have our troops on the Afghan Pakistan border in 2002, when Al Quaeda types were fleeing into the country? At that point in time, flush with victory, and with 9-11 still giving us moral capital we could have really committed to rooting out Al Quaeda.//

Pure propaganda. The US stopped chasing AQ up to the Pakistani border. Mush refused to let us in to finish off any continued threat. We respected Pakistan's sovereignty, and trusted Mush. He promised to take over from that point forward; but he did nothing at all.

Mush is the real culprit; but you chose not to go there - why?

In effect, he also allowed them to regroup, resupply, and recruit new members. He not only didn't do what he clearly said he would do, but he stabbed us in the back as well.

Furthermore, I am beginning to see the hand of another player in here - perhaps China or Russia - who may feel that it is best to keep the US looking ineffectual, incapable, and off balance. It would easily be in the best interests of either power - or both - to do just this.

The only question left is: who/how did either one of these powers sway Mush to their way of thinking? I think this is the question that must be answered...

Your useless tirade to blame the US - through the proxy of Bush - is useless, lying and devoid of truth or facts. But this is just another day in the life of Farzad...

I wonder why, we didn't have our troops on the Afghan Pakistan border in 2002, when Al Quaeda types were fleeing into the country? At that point in time, flush with victory, and with 9-11 still giving us moral capital we could have really committed to rooting out Al Quaeda. Instead George bush stabbed America in the back and decided that we needed our forces to go and secure Iraq's oil wealth for his cronies and to pay Saddam back for his anti-Israeli policies. THE NEOCONS ARE TRAITORS WHO HAVE STABBED AMERICA IN THE BACK, WITH WILLING AIDE OF THE PROPAGANDISTS AND LIARS IN OUR MEDIA. COULD YOU IMAGINE THE UPROAR IF CLINTON OUTED A CIA FRONT COMPANY AND COVERT AGENT IN ORDER TO SCORE POLICTAL POINTS. THE CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT AMERICA, THEY CARE ABOUT POWER, MONEY, AND THEIR BIGOTTED WORLD VIEW. 9-11 and stopping terrorism is nothing more than a phoney cover story for their power hungry and racist agenda.

"Insurgents Seize Pakistan Border Fort
Deutsche Presse-Agentur

January 16, 2008

Islamabad - Several hundred Islamic insurgents encircled and seized a strategic Pakistani military base by the border with Afghanistan early Jan. 15 after a fierce battle with government troops, news reports said.

The heavily-armed force of pro-Taliban gunmen attacked the Sararogha Fort located in the South Waziristan tribal region and killed some 30 of its 40 defenders, Pakistan's Dawn and Aaj television reported.

Six militants died and several paramilitary soldiers were captured in more than five hours of fighting which led to the fall of the colonial-era redoubt, sources told the channels.

"Communication of the troops with their base camp was lost at around 02:00 this morning," a local administrative official told the BBC's Urdu Service.

Pakistani military officials confirmed that more than 400 militants attacked the fort but rejected reports of a crushing defeat. There was no official confirmation of any casualties."

Yeap. Pakistan doesn't need any US help.

"We control the fort and intense fighting is still going on," a high-ranking army source said.

Militants under the command of pro-Taliban tribal leader Baitullah Mehsud were believed to be behind the raid in the border region where al-Qaeda cells are also thought to be active.

South Waziristan has seen repeated insurgents attacks on security forces since government truces with local pro-Taliban tribes broke down late last year.

jawahar writes:the point made by Arkin that neither Mush nor Bush are serious in taking on the real challenge is correct.

- I agree with yr assessment on what is probably going on in Pakistan but I dont think the "change" in US position will take place. The US may press Israel for structural changes but the fundamental changes that will alter our relationship w/Israel is what the terrorists want, and that will not happen. But suppose it did, Do you think there would be peace in the ME ? doubtful. Israel in a weaker position and losing the support of a strong ally like the US would probably make war in the region even more likely.

It is naive to imagine that the US is not operating already inside Pakistani territory a.k.a. the British and US special forces inside northern Iran. The only point that emerges from Musharraf's interview is that he will not allow a media show of US presence in the tribal areas. The tribal region has for centuries remained outside any administrative control and, in near history, outside of Islamabad's governing domain. That status quo is being changed deliberately and at a pace determined by Islamabad. What we need to remember is that cleansing the tribal region of Al Qaeda, Taliban and the likes is the not final solution to the problem of terrorism. The Frankenstein of terror has its roots deep elsewhere. The point made by Arkin that neither Mush nor Bush are serious in taking on the real challenge is correct. For the moment, the rest of the world (or the worst half) has to suffer more bombings and violence.

We will know we are in Pakistan's North West territories when we start seeing the "competing death squad" situation like we had in Iraq, Central America before that, and Vietnam before that. (When it comes to dishing out the terror, we in the U.S. are no slouches.)

Even though the whole world will know it, there was a problem with letting this go public, having it openly discussed embarrassed and destabilized a militaristic right wing barely democratic administration and forced it further into already decidedly dangerous and undemocratic actions... and it wasn't good for Musharraf's administration either.

It's not too late to impeach, we can probably avoid some last minute desperation moves on the part of these clowns.

Arkin is on target again - this is an unusual week. Pakistan is the biggest threat to the US...

Posted by: al75

And the United States of America
is clearly the 'biggest
threat' to any nation
of the world that
is not in
compliance
with the
will of
the US
Gov't!

One could interpret your comments, al75,
to mean that Pakistan is best equipped
and willing to resist an invasion
(utilizing WMDs) and occupation
by the United States of
America.

And, wouldn't the United States resist
invasion by any other nation of the
world if the tables were turned?

Yes! Solution: The U.S. must stop
manipulating and interfering in
the internal affairs of other
nations of the world!

The Bush Administration has set a new
record for such abysmal behavior,
and the other nations of the
world, some of them, have
apparently had just
about enough!

I am do not think this is merely a ploy by the governments. A have your cake and eat it too situation, if you will. While it may seem that way to some--I personally feel that Musharraf is doing this to spite the United States. I know call me a conspiracy theorist, but I feel that Musharraf has little so little control over his US backed nation that he feels Special Operations Forces could be used to undermine his rule or taint his legacy. He fears that more US intervention could help quicken his demise, whether or not it is the direct effect of the US or not.

Another idea is the coming elections. Maybe Mucharraf wants to go out in style--having kept the nation together without foreign help even in a time of crisis (Bhutto) and in the face of insurmountable odds (terrorism).

Either way--I am not so sure that Musharraf is being given a fig leaf. It seems to me more like a public jab at the US.

Pakistan nuclear weapons and materials must be secured, by any means necessary.)Hawk

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A REAL FRIGHTENING INNEUNDO, CAN YOU PLEASE ELABORATE?

Mr. Arkin,

Regarding deployment of SOF to Pakistan, you write: "What we are watching is political theater that advances Musharraf's undemocratic and ineffective rule, while a wrong-headed and singular military counter-terrorism strategy moves forward."

As a strategic issue, your assessment is spot on. Successful CT strategic action requires the full spectrum of American power: law enforcement, military, intelligence, communications, international trade, education, economic development, and legal systems tuned to handle terrorist threats.

The administration is still reacting to tactical situations, and not executing a strategic plan of action. The tactical situation is dangerous. The possibility of al-Qaeda acquiring fissile materials (HEU) or finished nuclear warheads grows as their operations extend beyond the boarder region. American preemptive action may be required to address this threat.

Pakistan nuclear weapons and materials must be secured, by any means necessary.

in the same manner that the american people should know that the covert war began long ago against iran, they should also know that the white house is in over their heads all over the middle east and central asia. if not, then how does one account for all of the "indirect fire" and "accidental death" reports filed by the pentagon???

Mr. Arkin : I believe U.S. has almost exhausted most of its options of fighting war on terror. It seems there is no better choice than Gen(Rtd)Musharraf in Pakistan, Karzai in Afghanistan and Maliki in Iraq , with Rice in the State Departmen. When we think about it and look deep in to U.S. foreign policy since days of cold war and Russian attack on Afghanistan , it all falls on the shoulders of U. S. policy makers, to accept the blame and take responsibility .

It is time to change direction from the war to negotiations with new initiatives and leadership . I hope a President in January 2009 will start work on just that i.e. , negotiations with all the parties in the region.

Arkin is on target again - this is an unusual week.

Pakistan is the biggest threat to the US.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Pakistan harbours the Taliban and al queada.

Meanwhile, there's India, and the dispute over Kashmir, and the persistent threat of war.

There's no easy answer. Bush's blundering has made everything worse, much worse. But what should US policy actually BE?

I don't pretend to know. I respected those lawyers going out to get their heads beaten in after Musharraff canned the supreme court.

I believe that the only hope for the US in the long run, is to go back to standing for what it used to stand for: human rights, human dignity -- the 'four freedoms' of not too long ago

Musharaff's days are number...

and if the other side doesn't get him, the
Americans - that he turned on his own
people to support - will get him.
He will soon become just
another traffic figure
like Saddam, or
remember
Noriega?

However, that is what you get when
you play footsies with the devil.
I wonder however, will they
hang him or find a
pretext to
incarterate him?

No, I bet a group of Marines will
rescue him one day and place
him in some remote country,
where he can hang out
with the likes of
Aristide!

We will call it the Musharaff
rendition - the man is
toast, and so is his
plan to rescue
his country!

Dick Cheny could have served
for the Fuhrer, and with
disctinction!

al-Qaida is it's own worst enemy, because it is their way or you die. As in Iraq, this will create problems with mainstream Muslims in Pakistan. There will come a time when they will have to deal with the situation themselves. At that time, as in Iraq, they may find U.S. Forces useful. We will have to see? If they can handle this problem themselves, more power to them.
We do need to stay out of the internal affairs of Pakistan.
The Marines have volunteered to handle Afghanistan by themselves. It would bring unity of command to the problem, but the A-10s seem to be doing some useful work, and you might want to keep some Air Force units around.
I would like to see them working with local people rather than NATO. The British do have an interest as they have suffered attacks in Great Britain. They will probably want to stay. We also need an agreement with Iran, because we need their cooperation there, as well as Iraq. We also need to get out of Iraq, and take care of business in Afghanistan.

As Mush said and said it right.It would be unwise on the part of USA to go in the mountains. It would be considered as invasion. Those mountains are already invaded by terrorist which Pakistan is fighting. Pakistan is the only party can do some good. It was Pakistan who created this mess in their own yard and they are the only people are cable of cleaning their own, home grown weed from their countryside. They would not like any more alien weed seed germinating in the indus velly. Sindh and Gangetic planes are very fertile soil for any kind of weed which include India. Even India and China woun't like this unilateral adventure by the USA. Keep your hand off, help Pakistanies to root out this weed. They have the only suitable pesticide to indiguosly weed out the weed.

i will feel no disturbance to tell u that us forces had proved them selves very weak against the untrained taliban.they have no right nd ability to operate in pakistan.it is very easy to say but difficult to do.pak forces r well trained.in iraq they r also very poor in stopping nd suppressing the opposition.

i will feel no disturbance to tell u that us forces had proved them selves very weak against the untrained taliban.they have no right nd ability to operate in pakistan.it is very easy to say but difficult to do.pak forces r well trained.in iraq they r also very poor in stopping nd suppressing the opposition.

Good one Omar!!!

They wanted to defeat the URSS, so they created Al Qaeda and rest is history...

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.com
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

2008 election charade, part 2: White House bought by big money

By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor
Jan 15, 2008, 00:18

As previously written, the 2008 election is a manipulation, rigged by political elites working behind sock puppet candidates. This fact is even more obvious when one follows the money.

What big money interests want

OpenSecrets.org is one vital resource that tracks campaign money flows in detail, and virtually in real time. Not surprisingly, both the mainstream corporate and so-called alternative media have devoted scant attention to this corruption.

As culled from the OpenSecrets.org list, here are some of the prominent corporate contributors behind leading candidates (as of 1/11/08):

Republicans

John McCain

Blank Rome LLP
Citigroup
Bank of New York Mellon
Merrill Lynch
Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan Chase
Credit Suisse
Lehman Brothers
Morgan Stanley
MGM Mirage
Univision

Mitt Romney

Bain Capital (note: Romney's own company)
Goldman Sachs
Merrill Lynch
Citigroup
Marriott
Kirkland & Ellis
Morgan Stanley
PriceWaterhouse
JP Morgan
UBS
Lehman Brothers

Rudy Giuliani

Ernst & Young
Credit Suisse
Merrill Lynch
Citigroup
Bear Stearns
Lehman Brothers
Bracewell & Guiliani (Guiliani's own firm)
Morgan Stanley
UBS
Milbank Tweed
Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan
Bank of America

Mike Huckabee

State of Arkansas
Wal-Mart
Tyson Foods
Morgan Stanley

Democrats

Hillary Clinton

DLA Piper
Goldman Sachs
Morgan Stanley
Citigroup
National Amusements
Emily's List
JP Morgan
Kirkland & Ellis
Skadden Arps
Merrill Lynch
Time Warner
Lehman Brothers
Bear Stearns
Ernst & Young
Blank Rome LLP

Barack Obama

Goldman Sachs
Lehman Brothers
National Amusements
JP Morgan
Exelon Energy (parent of Commonwealth Edison)
Citigroup
Citadel Investments
Credit Suisse
Skadden Arps
Morgan Stanley
Time Warner
UBS
Harvard University

John Edwards

Fortress Investment Group
Act Blue
Goldman Sachs
Skadden Arps
Deutsche Bank
Citigroup

This is the bare tip of the iceberg that OpenSecrets.org's database exposes. The site also tracks the money coming from lobbyists, wealthy individuals, and industries, cross-references money flows by industry, and updates the financial status of every campaign -- for those who bother to look it up. There is dirty money that is not even being reported.

What is clear is the fact that major corporations are collectively hedging their bets, financing both sides. For example, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have money behind every leading candidate. Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and UBS are also prominent players, in virtually all of the camps.

Corporate law and accounting firms, many of which are not household names (not all of them mentioned in this article), but well known in Washington and on Wall Street, are heavily involved with the campaigns -- assuring that the laws and the books will be cooked.

Look up the upper management of the companies, and the pattern is clear.

There is no illusion what the "election" really is, and whose hands are manipulating the sock puppets. Each sock puppet serves the world's upper management, and uses the populace as cannon fodder.

All the talk of "campaign finance reform," "fighting special interests," particularly from the corrupt John McCain (who is enthusiastically mainlining funding as you read this), is just that: talk.

The candidates are lying. The prospective puppets with the real chances of being selected are career liars to begin with.

For the rest please go to:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2840.shtml

False Dimitry: stop posting. You are a boor and a Communist.

The US would have been far better off if it avoided the imperial temptation of trying to run far away countries by remote control (a job for which the current security establishment is clearly unprepared...see the mess in Pakistan, see who they picked as allies and who they regard as enemies: they have picked the ISI as an ally and regard every democrat in Pakistan as a potential enemy because he or she may hinder the rule of the ISI). The US should have put the world on notice that support or succor to terrorists would be met with graduated punishment and support to anti-terror efforts would be rewarded and STOPPED at that point without trying to get stupid state department underlings pick favorites in local politics

Bush should have been doing this in 2002, instead of shooting his wad in Iraq. What he did in the alternative was to launch a war for oil and Israel in Iraq that has wasted our moral, political, military, and financial ability to respond. Both Bush and Musharaf where on stronger footing in 2002, and international pressure could have been applied when the world was still highly sympathetic after 9-11, to get large numbers of troops on that both sides of that border. IF THERE IS ANOTHER MAJOR AL QUAEDA ATTACK ON US SOIL GEORGE BUSH WILL BE RESPONSIBLE, HE HAS 6 YEARS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AND HE HASN'T DONE BUBKUS.

I'D LIKE ONE OF YOU CONSERVATIVES TO TELL ME IF NOT FOR OIL AND ISRAEL THEN WHAT POSSIBLE EXPLANATION EXISTS FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTION. HOW IS IT THAT WE WHERE ATTACKED BY ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS BASED IN AFGHANISTAN, WITH SAUDI AND EGYPTIAN TERRORISTS, FINANCED BY THE SAUDI UPPER CLASSES, AND THEN WE END UP INVADING SECULAR AND OIL RICH IRAQ? If any of you war supporters can answer that question for me, Id be happy to listen? THE ONE THING I WILL NEVER FORGIVE BUSH FOR IS THAT HE PROMISED TO END AL QUAEDA AND CATCH OSAMA AND THAT HE NEVER FULLY COMMITTED HIS GOVERNMENT TO THE TASK, THIS AS AN AMERICAN IS WHAT I HATE BUSH THE FOR THE MOST. EVEN BEYOND HIS RIDICULOUS RACIST HATE CAMPAIGN AGAINST MY BIRTH NATION.

We need to leave Iraq, pay reparations, and focus our attention back on Pakistan and Afghan border. Although right now I don't think we will be able to go into Pakistan, because of risks of unstablizing that nuclear nation with all of the crazy happenings there.

Arkin,

Don't you think the US is stretched too thin already given the records and capability of this administration? Imagine this, hot spots stretching from the Mediterranean Shore of Lebanon to the Indus River Valley? How many million troops do you think we will need to fight that war? Ten, fifteen? How many trillions? The entire US GDP may not be enough.

The truth is the US needs Musharraf in Pakistan right now. The best we can do is to push him to work with the oppositions and release the Justices and lawyers he has under house arrest. And maybe for him to learn to live within a minimum cover of the rule of law. Why? To keep al-Qaeda/Talibans from spreading from the mountains into the cities. Once the city people turn toward those bad boys, all bets are off. So we need to convince him it's for both his and our own good. Rooting out al-Qaeda in Pakistan is probably a pipe dream right now.

Rice is in Iraq today as she should be. That is one theater that the US has direct control of and a 50-50 chance of some success if they work hard and smart enough from now on.

Leave the rest to the next guy or gal. It's getting late for this administration to take any major initiative in that region.