Comments on: Casting for 9/11 ‘The Sequel’ http://www.deadissue.com/archives/2007/07/09/casting-for-911-the-sequel/ At home drawing pictures of mountaintops Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:15:55 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Al Swearengen http://www.deadissue.com/archives/2007/07/09/casting-for-911-the-sequel/comment-page-1/#comment-21874 Al Swearengen Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:50:43 +0000 http://deadissue.com/archives/2007/07/09/casting-for-911-the-sequel/#comment-21874 I don't advocate taking out anybody, but really think it's weak to approach our relationship with Pakistan by accepting that the regions its government cannot control are somehow off limits to us for an operation like this one. The flip side of the coin (cruise missiles or predator drones armed with missiles) seems like something they'd be more concerned with. If we have intelligence to act on, and say we do end up with our target, then as far as Pakistan's stated position on terrorism, we'd be doing everyone a favor. It can be worked out. I really think that Rumsfeld couldn't abide the CIA scoring successes on his watch. It was an ego thing. And I agree with you that Musharrif is probably better than whatever alternative happens to rise in his absense, and with that in mind, it's wise to strike while the iron's hot. Because the bottom line isn't Musharrif, but rather destroying al Qaeda. If we're never going to conduct a smash and grab operation like the one we passed on here, our chances of gaining the upper hand grows less likely. I don’t advocate taking out anybody, but really think it’s weak to approach our relationship with Pakistan by accepting that the regions its government cannot control are somehow off limits to us for an operation like this one. The flip side of the coin (cruise missiles or predator drones armed with missiles) seems like something they’d be more concerned with.

If we have intelligence to act on, and say we do end up with our target, then as far as Pakistan’s stated position on terrorism, we’d be doing everyone a favor. It can be worked out.

I really think that Rumsfeld couldn’t abide the CIA scoring successes on his watch. It was an ego thing.

And I agree with you that Musharrif is probably better than whatever alternative happens to rise in his absense, and with that in mind, it’s wise to strike while the iron’s hot. Because the bottom line isn’t Musharrif, but rather destroying al Qaeda.

If we’re never going to conduct a smash and grab operation like the one we passed on here, our chances of gaining the upper hand grows less likely.

]]> By: bernie kosar http://www.deadissue.com/archives/2007/07/09/casting-for-911-the-sequel/comment-page-1/#comment-21873 bernie kosar Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:40:30 +0000 http://deadissue.com/archives/2007/07/09/casting-for-911-the-sequel/#comment-21873 This post is a complicated one. Musharif...Thank god for Musharif. What's the alternative? Navaz Sharif? Or Benazir Bhuto and her husband, Mr. 15%? Pervez is walking a political tight-rope. Appease the extremists or face a certain 'shot in the face'--execution, OR get shot in the face by Cheney (and his proxy group), if Musharif doesn't live within the affections of his western master...a tough road indeed. The North West Frontier Province in Pakistan is probably the hardest to govern with any government. It is dominated by tribal tradition. To make any kind of difference, you have to be born there. We were big time backers of Musharif when he committed the bloodless coup (In the Clinton era). So, by backing him and the House of Saud then, we were backing the Taliban. India also has a huge part in all of this because she is truly the big bully in the region. And who are we to actually insist that we install troops in any sovereign nation (Oh shit, we invaded Iraq. I'm sorry!). Yeah, I was an Urdu linguist in the Army. And I couldn't wait to get into Pakistan after 9/11, but I eventually settled on Uzbekistan and then Iraq because that's where the real terrorists were! But does that feeling make it right? Taking out Musharif isn't the real answer to save us at home. We must change our foreign policy to save this homeland. This post is a complicated one. Musharif…Thank god for Musharif. What’s the alternative? Navaz Sharif? Or Benazir Bhuto and her husband, Mr. 15%? Pervez is walking a political tight-rope. Appease the extremists or face a certain ’shot in the face’–execution, OR get shot in the face by Cheney (and his proxy group), if Musharif doesn’t live within the affections of his western master…a tough road indeed. The North West Frontier Province in Pakistan is probably the hardest to govern with any government. It is dominated by tribal tradition. To make any kind of difference, you have to be born there. We were big time backers of Musharif when he committed the bloodless coup (In the Clinton era). So, by backing him and the House of Saud then, we were backing the Taliban. India also has a huge part in all of this because she is truly the big bully in the region.
And who are we to actually insist that we install troops in any sovereign nation (Oh shit, we invaded Iraq. I’m sorry!). Yeah, I was an Urdu linguist in the Army. And I couldn’t wait to get into Pakistan after 9/11, but I eventually settled on Uzbekistan and then Iraq because that’s where the real terrorists were! But does that feeling make it right? Taking out Musharif isn’t the real answer to save us at home. We must change our foreign policy to save this homeland.

]]>