To, Tuesday, September 11, 2001
Result: 16,256 days
- Israeli PM Ariel Sharon and President George W. Bush
Israel urged US to attack Iran - not Iraq
By Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON –Israeli officials warned the George W Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilizing to the region and urged the United States instead to target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former Bush administration official Lawrence Wilkerson.
Wilkerson, then a member of the US State Department's policy planning staff and later chief of staff for secretary of state Colin Powell, recalled in an interview that the Israelis reacted immediately to indications that the Bush administration was thinking of war against Iraq. After the Israeli government picked up the first signs of that intention, said Wilkerson, "The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy - Iran is the enemy."
Wilkerson describes the Israeli message to the Bush administration in early 2002 as being, "If you are going to destabilize the balance of power, do it against the main enemy."
The warning against an invasion of Iraq was "pervasive" in Israeli communications with the US administration, Wilkerson recalled. It was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence, and private citizens.
Wilkerson noted that the main point of their communications was not that the US should immediately attack Iran, but that "it should not be distracted by Iraq and Saddam Hussein" from a focus on the threat from Iran.
The Israeli advice against using military force against Iraq was apparently triggered by reports reaching Israeli officials in December 2001 that the Bush administration was beginning serious planning for an attack on Iraq. Journalist Bob Woodward revealed inPlan of Attack that on December 1, 2001, secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld had ordered the Central Command chief, General Tommy Franks, to come up with the first formal briefing on a new war plan for Iraq on December 4. That started a period of intense discussions of war planning between Rumsfeld and Franks.
Soon after Israeli officials got wind of that planning, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon asked for a meeting with Bush primarily to discuss US intentions to invade Iraq. In the weeks preceding Sharon's meeting with Bush on February 7, 2002, a procession of Israeli officials conveyed the message to the US administration that Iran represented a greater threat, according to a Washington Post report on the eve of the meeting.
Israeli defense minister Fouad Ben-Eliezer, who was visiting Washington with Sharon, revealed the essence of the strategic differences between Jerusalem and Washington over military force. He was quoted by the Post as saying, "Today, everybody is busy with Iraq. Iraq is a problem ... But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq."
Sharon, who was incapacitated by a stroke last year, never revealed publicly what he said to Bush in the February 7 meeting. But Yossi Alpher, a former adviser to prime minister Ehud Barak, wrote in an article in The Forward last January that Sharon advised Bush not to occupy Iraq, according to a knowledgeable source. Alpher wrote that Sharon also assured Bush that Israel would not "push one way or another" regarding his plan to take down Saddam.
Alpher noted that Washington did not want public support by Israel and in fact requested that Israel refrain from openly supporting the invasion in order to avoid an automatic negative reaction from Iraq's Arab neighbors.
After that meeting, the Sharon government generally remained silent on the issue of an invasion of Iraq. A notable exception, however, was a statement on August 16, 2002, by Ranaan Gissin, an aide to Sharon. Ranaan declared, "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose. It will only give [Saddam] more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."
As late as October 2002, however, there were still signs of continuing Israeli grumbling about the Bush administration's obsession with taking over Iraq. Both the Israel Defense Forces' chief of staff and its chief of military intelligence made public statements that month implicitly dismissing the Bush administration's position that Saddam's alleged quest for nuclear weapons made him the main threat. Both officials suggested that Israel's military advantage over Iraq had continued to increase over the decade since the Gulf War as Iraq had grown weaker.
The Israeli chief of military intelligence, Major-General Aharon Farkash, said Iraq had not deployed any missiles that could strike Israel directly and challenged the Bush administration's argument that Iraq could obtain nuclear weapons within a relatively short time. He gave an interview to Israeli television in which he said army intelligence had concluded that Iraq could not have nuclear weapons in less than four years. He insisted that Iran was as much of a nuclear threat as Iraq.
Israeli strategists generally believed that taking down the Saddam Hussein regime could further upset an Iran-Iraq power balance that had already tilted in favor of Iran after the US defeat of Saddam's army in the 1991 Gulf War. By 1996, however, neo-conservatives with ties to the Likud Party in Israel were beginning to argue for a more aggressive joint US-Israeli strategy aimed at a "rollback" of all of Israel's enemies in the region, including Iran, but beginning by taking down Saddam and putting a pro-Israeli regime in power there.
That was the thrust of the 1996 report of a task force led by Richard Perle for the right-wing Israeli think-tank the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, and aimed at the Likud prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
But most strategists in the Israeli government and the Likud Party - including Sharon himself - did not share that viewpoint. Despite agreement between neo-conservatives and Israeli officials on many issues, the dominant Israeli strategic judgment on the issue of invading Iraq diverged from that of US neo-conservatives because of differing political-military interests.
Israel was more concerned with the relative military threat posed by Iran and Iraq, whereas neo-conservatives in the Bush administration were focused on regime change in Iraq as a low-cost way of leveraging more ambitious changes in the region. From the neo-conservative perspective, the very military weakness of Saddam's Iraq made it the logical target for the use of US military power.
Gareth Porter is a historian and national-security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in June 2005.
(Inter Press Service)
As I've been writing on the subject of Atheism lately this I'm sure will interest my readers. Originally published on Townhall it was a debate I had on Jihad Watch and Pajamas Media at the end of 2011 where I speculated on the fate of Christopher Hitchens (who recently died) in the afterlife.
FROM APOLLOSPEAKS' TOWNHALL ARCHIVES
2011-12-18 11:24--(ORIGINALLY) MY DEBATE ON JIHAD WATCH ABOUT CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS' FATE IN THE AFTERLIFE
One of the great gods of atheism is dead uneasily dwelling in the spiritual world and shaking his atheist faith. It is a baptism of fire that will purge him of error and make a better and wiser soul of him. No matter how much he ate, drank, screwed, smoked, learned, and raged at God and religion Hitchens could never fill the emptiness inside him. An emptiness that only God could ultimately fill (as religious people know) as He is our greatest happiness and highest good.
I hadn't realized till now that there are quite a few atheists posting comments on Jihad Watch. As on Frontpage and elsewhere I posted "Christopher Hitchens In The Afterlife" here and got this mostly hostile response:
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS IN THE AFTERLIFE
How I wish I was there in the spiritual realm to see Chris Hitchens’ astonishment that his mind had survived his untimely death; that he is very much alive in the spiritual state that he’d mocked all his life as a primitive fiction of “evil religion;” that there’s more to existence than flesh. Is he disappointed to know that he was wrong for so long, that his crude, inexorable materialism was a hoax? Does he unhappily feel cheated that he wasn’t obliterated, dissolved into nothingness like he rigidly thought? Is he saddened to know that religion was right, that he’s an undying, immortal, imperishable soul? Is he cursing his state craving nihilism instead which he believed was his fate in the end? How’s he handling the truth that God exists, and that he owes his great mind and existence to Him? Hitchens’ soul must be in intellectual turmoil as his life of unbelief ill-prepared him for death. And so must it be for all atheistic materialists who’ll have the truth thrust upon them in the end.
Apollo Speaks wrote:
Is he disappointed to know that he was wrong for so long, that his crude, inexorable materialism was a hoax? Does he unhappily feel cheated that he wasn't obliterated...
I very much doubt it, Apollo. If the afterlife of Christopher Hitchens is as you imagine, I'm sure he would be fascinated at a new adventure...
Christopher Hitchens was a hero. I salute him.
After a difficult period of adjustment where he accepts the new reality of a disembodied state (which he formally thought impossible) the experience will [as you say] become a wonderful new adventure for him.
ApolloSpeaks, this Comments section has resonated with expressions of regret at the passing of Christopher Hitchens, a staunch defender of freedom of thought and a opponent of the imposition of all forms of supernaturalist metaphysics on those who do not share such beliefs. It was such a consolation to read so many respectful and sincere tributes.
Then you came along with your childish rant, imagining him waking up in an "afterlife" with your god presumably chanting Nyah-nyah-nah-nah-nyah. Do you have any idea how smug and vindictive you sound?
We atheists hear this all the time and there is no way to express how tired we are of the silly taunts, to say nothing of the backhanded compliments about how amazing it is that we fight for freedom even though we have no souls and "don't believe in anything" (as a religious "friend" of mine puts it).
May I refer you to Ole Hartling's comment, though I doubt you are willing to hear it. Thank you, Ole, for that quote of Hitch's, which says what I feel so much better than I ever can. If only more of the "religious" were willing to listen and secure enough to take his request to heart.
Religion friendly atheist author S.E. Cupp
Hitchens atheism was positively vindictive, unhinged, and hateful. He didn't just want to throw out the baby with the bath, he wanted to boil the baby in oil and eat it for dinner. Compare him to the lovely S.E. Cupp, a sensible, balanced, non-militant atheist who understands, and wrote about, the essential connection between the Judeo-Christian Tradition and our great nation and civilization. I'm not nearly as hard on Hitch as he was about reasonable, universal, ancient truths about God, immortality, and a moral law of right and wrong that he's now painfully and sorrowfully discovering to be true in the purgatory of his afterlife experience.
Kinana of Khaybar replied to comment from ApolloSpeaks
You disgrace only yourself, by gloating over Hitchens' death. Your irrational and unwarranted threat against atheists, at the end of your comment, is noted.
Am I disgracefully gloating over Hitchens' death? I think not. I believe that Hitch is passing through the Purgatory of the after life he so militantly denied on his way to the loving peace and grace that passeth understanding.
StephenA55 replied to comment from ApolloSpeaks
"He also saw the Christian threat, the Jewish threat, the Hindu threat, and the Buddhist threat. All religion was toxic and a threat to this man, who now sees what a fool he has been."
You are welcome to your view. He was actually much more nuanced than your gross over-simplification suggests.
"Hitchens' soul must be in intellectual turmoil as his life of unbelief ill-prepared him for death. And so must it be for all atheistic materialists who'll have the truth thrust upon them in the end."
His life of unbelief was the perfect preparation for death. Better than living in perpetual fear of an eternal agony in Hades. What could be better than living life to the full; free of nagging guilt from inherited sin; in accordance to moral tenets evolved by a rational mind that can easily surpass in goodness those biblical commands in the OT.
The NT is better, but when you select from the bible then you are using your own judgement, and are ready to put that musty volume to one side.
Merry Christmas, and a happy, well-lived life to you.
You say that "Hitchens life of unbelief was the perfect preparation for death." Are you using your head on this one my friend? Think about it. The death Hitchens prepared himself for intellectually and morally was eternal death and oblivion, the complete, everlasting extinction of consciousness-an absolute materialist's fiction. As the death Hitchens underwent wasn't what he imagined or foresaw how then was he prepared for it? How are you preapred for it?
Well said, LRB....
I wondered at first that ApolloSpeaks was having a larf but obviously not. He/she's a sad indicator of the lengths that people will go to qualify their fantasies. Self-delusion is a wonderful thing and with it, anything is possible, including this type of crap. It shows an under-lying insecurity quite common in religionists of all faiths. They hate to see any kind of challenge to their belief-system and will react in the most bizarre fashion. You only have to look at islam and the almost-as-dreadful christian far-right, with their smug interpretation of scripture and the assumption of righteousness.
In the end it's all 'borrowed-plummage'.
"Religion poisons Everything".
ApolloSpeaks relied to Tim Reynolds
Tim Reynolds writes
"They [religious believers] hate to see any kind of challenge to their belief-system and will react in the most bizarre fashion."
How is my reaction to the death of the boldest, most outspoken, and offensive militant atheist of our time bizarre? I think most any believer in an afterlife would be fascinated to learn how Hitchens is taking to his unexpected experience; to a spiritual state which he believed with unshakable faith was a childish, evil, degrading fiction that mankind must outgrow. How is that bizarre?
'' ....a moral law of right and wrong that he's now painfully and sorrowfully discovering to be true in the purgatory of his afterlife experience.''
Do you really think you speak for *God* ??
If we're going to talk about right and wrong, then I would submit that Hitch spoke about what *he* believed to be right and wrong, and he was blazingly honest in what he said. And his beliefs about 'a moral law' are just as much valid as yours, if not more so.
I would bet, if there is a God, He would like and appreciate Hitch more than the self-righteous attitudes of people like you. When you have achieved as much as Hitch, and risked as much, then you may have the right to judge his *earthly* achievements - as for the afterlife, if there is one, that is for *God* to judge, not you. Pharisee.
"Do you really think you speak for *God* ??"
No. I speak from my soul about another human soul who foolishly believed he came from nothing and would return to nothing and shortened his life by his destructive excesses. If you honor the genius of Christopher Hitchens and believe that he was an asset to this country and the world then you must fault him for his nihilistic philosophy-the bad ideas that drove him to drink, chain smoking, and God knows what else, and deprived the world prematurely of his genius.
Edna Pierce | Thanks, Robert Spence, for honoring Hitchens.
He'll be greatly missed.
And, ApolloSpeaks, you are indeed disgracefully gloating. All you seem to be preoccupied with is what you suppose Hitchens is enduring in imaginary supernatural realms. It's fairly disgusting, and even worse, silly.
What kind of "disgraceful gloating" is it that sees Hitchens' afterlife experience as a kind of necessary shock treatment (some would call it tough love) to purge his mind of error and fill it with truth and great happiness? I'm hoping for the best for him, am I not?
Apollo Speaks says,
"You say that "Hitchens life of unbelief was the perfect preparation for death." Are you using your head on this one my friend? Think about it. The death Hitchens prepared himself for intellectually and morally was eternal death and oblivion, the complete, everlasting extinction of consciousness-an absolute materialist's fiction. Since the death Hitchens has isn't what he foresaw how then was he prepared for it?"
Well, how do you prepare for an afterlife!?
I won't bother because it would be a waste of my limited time here in this life. If it does happen I'll be ready. Unless it requires a lifetime of humble prayer, worship and other grovelling. If God wants that then I will argue that he should have given better evidence for his existence. And why should an omnipotent being be so needy?
Of course there is no afterlife. Nothing to worry about. Take it easy AS, you have all you need. Just enjoy your one life, it's all anyone ever gets, but it's all you need.
He'll be greatly missed.
"Well, how do you prepare for an afterlife!?"
Everything in moderation; and the contemplation of God (man's highest good and happiness) as Aristotle said in his Nicomachean Ethics.
Apollo- you are in error.
Do you really think you speak for *God* ??
No. I speak from my soul about another human soul who foolishly believed he came from nothing and would return to nothing and shortened his life by his destructive excesses. If you honor the genius of Christopher Hitchens and believe that he was an asset to this country and the world then you must fault him for his nihilistic philosophy-the bad ideas that drove him to drink, chain-smoking, and God knows what else, and deprived the world prematurely of his genius.
Read your post again, with all its questionable presumptions, then let me know, and we'll argue.
Never mind, for the moment, the man's supposed excesses, in your view, or his "religious" bent - it is not for us to judge - we may, however, judge his work, which was prolific and astounding.
Let him rest in peace.
THE MOHAMMED OF ATHEISM
Yes, his output was astounding. Even more astounding for a thoughtful man of the mind was his pathological hatred of God and all things spiritual. It was as though the God Idea had broken half of his astounding brain. His wanting to destroy religion (a throwback to the ghastly French Revolution) betrayed his insecurity and weakness of faith in atheism. He needed to have everyone believe as he believed so he could believe more strongly. This former communist could never fully free himself from totalitarianism. In a certain sense he was the mad Mohammad of atheism waging jihad with his pen and tongue for a sword.
Hitch did not hate God.
How could he hate God when he did not believe that God exists?
Hitchens hated the GOD IDEA. For him it was the most toxic, poisonous, and destructive thing in existence. The man who once believed that communism was the one solution to all the world's problems became an anti-God maniac believing that mankind's salvation greatly depended on eradicating God and religion from the earth. A world free of God and religion was Hitchens' life mission and utopian dream.
StephenA55 replied to comment from ApolloSpeaks
I would say that you exaggerate a great deal.
His writings on religion were well thought out, clear and reasoned. To call him a maniac on the grounds of his speaking for rationalism as opposed to supernaturalism is absurd.
He was also well aware that he would never see a world without religion in his lifetime. His views were expressed with passion, certainly, but he was touched by the warmth of his reception in the bible belt when on his speaking tours; that was not the response of a fanatic.
He was a humane man who understood the need of many people to believe in God.
The God Idea was Hitchen's Great Satan, Ultimate Evil, mankind's worse and most destructive invention from which sprung most of our problems and ills. He was so blinded with hate for God, and the concept of a human soul and afterlife, that he couldn't see the slightest good in any religion or spiritual philosophy. That Hitchens displayed warmth toward friendly believers on occasion did nothing to deter him from his insane mission or soften his fanatical atheism. Till the end he remained hell-bent on his cause. To see Hitchens in perspective, and just how irrational and unhinged he was, study up on S.E. Cupp a sensitive, humane and understanding atheist who wrote a book against the Hitchens of the world and their mindless attack on the Judeo-Christian (Classical) tradition the bedrock of our civilization.
Debate on Pajamas Media
From Sam to Apollo:
And how will you feel Apollo when you get there [to heaven] and truly understand that despite all of Hitchens’ atheism and dismissal of the eternal while he was alive, the Creator still loves him just as much as he loves you despite your lifetime of devotion?
Apollo to Sam:
Like you I understand this in the here and now: that God is love (wisdom and justice) and loves his creatures and creations. I understand that despite his insane war against God (Divine Reason), and his nihilistic belief in the ultimate nothingness of existence, Hitchens still has life and being and the use of his mind and faculties by God's grace and the reality of the material and spiritual universe that He created. Having unexpectedly survived the death of his flesh Hitchens must be in a state of profound anguish and regret that he used his great intellect to no good end, in the service of big lies and very bad ideas: that God is nonexistent; that the physical world is ultimate reality; that everything comes from and returns to nothing. Now that Hitch’s disembodied state is painfully refuting his most cherished beliefs I am sure that he repents having lived his life in error spreading lies about the universe and its Creator. If he sincerely regrets his past mistakes and sins God I'm sure in his Mercy will forgive him.
Posted on Huffington Post:
Christopher Hitchens' life was all sound and fury. And since he was an atheistic nihilist who believed that existence was an accident (that everything came from and returned to nothing with the Big Bang being a random unplanned event) by his own materialist philosophy he was an idiot telling a tale signifying nothing.
Posted on Atlas Shrugs
Loved the man and hated him. Loved his defense of freedom against the enemies of America and Western Man. Hated his militant atheism and his intemperate, brutal and savage attacks on all things religious and spiritual-from a God of incalculable creative power who can be known by direct experience, down to the indestructible human soul made in God's intellectual image. Right now Hitchens is most likely in torment (what Catholics and the Book of Maccabees call Purgatory) as the survival of his great mind after death is painfully refuting and shattering his atheistic materialism.
Critique of Bill Clinton's errors on the Crusades.
What this says about Dr. Salha is that he takes his religion very seriously and (like Obama) thinks it a religion of justice and peace unfairly under attack by ignorant bigots. In other words, like Obama Dr. Salha is completely blind to 14 centuries of Islamic jihad rooted in the prophet or war whose name he bears and is the source of the deadly acts of Moslem jihadists.
But contradicting Dr. Salha Dr. Suzanne Barakat, sister of one of the three slain students, blames Hick's crime on the controversial film American Sniper and its depiction of killing al Qaida terrorists by hero sniper Chris Kyle claiming that it diminishes the humanity of Moslems or dehumanizes them-making them look like vile despicable creatures worthy of death.
Which is it then? Are radicals who kill in Allah's name real Moslems or not? And if they are Moslem practicing true Islam in their crimes, as Ms. Barakat seems to believe, then what does that say about her? That prior to al Qaida terrorists being killed by Chris Kyle in Iraq they did nothing that diminished their humanity and dehumanized them? That their atrocities and crimes against US soldiers and fellow Moslems were Islamically justified? That in her eyes they were good Moslem men who no more deserved death than did her brother? And that Chris Kyle should have left them alone free to kill American soldiers at will? It sounds to me that the grieving Ms. Barakat, unlike the moderate Dr. Solha, is an Islamic supremacist who sided with al Qaida in Iraq during the war, and may now side with ISIS and the cause of radical Islam across the world.
In short, this Moslem woman needs to be watched. If she embraces the ideology of Islamic supremacist jihad as I suspect, and blames the death of her brother on the film American Sniper and its depiction of justified and necessary killing of inhuman Moslem scum, she may be looking to avenge herself for her brother's death and strike out at this country in the name of Allah and Islam.
ChaimBenLevin just posted the following in the comment section about Barakat's brother:
And if in fact what they claim is true, which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, that in fact, according to their Supreme Leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon, if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal. They should be able to get to yes. But we don't know if that's going to happen.
MORE ANTI-WEST HATE TALK FROM OBAMA'S "MOST TRUSTED" FOREIGN "ALLY"
Anti-West Statements By Turkish President Erdogan And PM Davutoglu: Muslim Countries Must ‘Unite And Defeat The Successors Of Lawrence Of Arabia'; ‘No One Will Be Able To Stop’ The Rise Of Islam In Europe
French street artist Combo was physically assaulted over his latest art work. Photo: Combo Culture Kidnapper/Facebook
ATHEIST BRAINIAC PRAISES CHRISTIANITY
Brainiac writing in the comment section said: "Let’s not forget that although Christians have committed atrocities in the past, and may commit some in the future they have done much to stop atrocities, racism, inequalities, perhaps more than any other religion
Slavery, and atrocities committed on people is not new. Slavery has been around for quite a while, and many other races besides blacks have been slaves, and have had atrocities committed upon them. Blacks in Africa practiced a brutal slavery. And not just slavery, look at the atrocities around the world from that pilot being burned to sexual slavery of young people to one faction or group brutally wiping out some other faction. On balance no religion has done more good for the human race than Christianity. And I, brainiac, am an atheist."
Brainaic isn't the first or only atheist to find value in Christianity: the Left's most hated religion. Conservative political commentator and ATHEIST S.E. Cupp wrote a controversial book excoriating the liberal media's jihad against Christianity.
Deserter Bowe Bergdahl's hatred of America was so great that he wanted to end his US citizenship and become a citizen of Afghanistan or Pakistan believing that either country was morally superior to America and more worthy of his lofty spiritual soul.
WHY DOESN'T OBESE ANTI-AMERICAN BIGOT MICHAEL MOORE
zip it about Chris Kyle's alleged anti-Arab racism and psychopathic right-wing savagery and try to outdo the box office success of American Sniper with a film about leftist hero Bo Bergdahl called American Deserter. Let's see how well that does at the box office; or if it wins any Oscar nominations like his last laughable flops ridiculing capitalism and extolling Castro's Communist healthcare system .
After losing his position of Senate Majority Leader on November 4th ( the 28th anniversary of winning his senate seat) Harry Reid (58 days later) injured and possibly lost his right eye in a freak excercise accident.
BACK IN 2009 WHEN DEMOCRATS
ruled the Executive Branch and Congress I referred to the Unholy Leftist Power Trinity of Obama, Pelosi and Reid as the "Three Blind Mice" because of their staggering stupidity and blindness in domestic and foreign policy. Little did I imagine that one of the three might be physically half blind in six years. You will notice that the injury Reid sustained was to his RIGHT eye. Could this be Karmic Justice for viciously poking the Right in the eye all these years? For preventing the Senate from voting on 350 bills passed by Congress and lyingly calling them "obstructionists"? For his defamation of fellow Mormon Mitt Romney as a "tax cheat"? For demonizing the Tea Party as "racists" and his insane tirades against the "unAmerican radical" Koch Brothers ? I'm surprised nobody blamed the Kochs for Harry's injury accusing them of booby trapping the resistance bands on his treadmill
THE ECONOMIC IGNORAMOUS-IN-CHIEF
is urging broken, busted Socialist Greece-which taxed, spent, borrowed and lied its way into national bankruptcy and blood in the streets (as we're doing)-to double down on spending when it didn't work for us in the 1930s, isn't working now and hasn't worked for Japan in 22 years. What will save Greece is what saved Socialist Sweden from Grecification in the 1990s: AUSTERITY ECONOMICS. Sweden faced with fiscal, financial and economic collapse drastically slashed taxes, spending, regulations, pensions and privatized national industries, and within five years restored prosperity. Austerity Economics works. Sweden is proof. Obama is a worthless, tax and spend, government-is-the-answer leftist jerk.
is speading to Pakistan. If so welcome to the club sisters.
Who needs Osama when we have Obama.
Eric Schultz's controversial characterization of the Taliban as a local non-terrorist insurgency group wasn't nearly as ignorant, troubling and sad as this half forgotten remark made by gaffemaster Joe Biden three years ago to Newsweek's Leslie Gelb:
"Look," said Biden seriously," THE TALIBAN PER SE IS NOT OUR ENEMY. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests (see)."
That is true. In his six years in office Obama has not once called the Taliban either "terrorists" or "enemies" or "radical extremists" like he's calls al-Qaida, ISIS and others. But what then are they in Obama's murky mind? If the Taliban who in the name of Allah and Islam have been fighting us for 13 years killing our soldiers and trying to drive us from Afghanistan aren't "terrorist enemies" like al-Qaida and ISIS (with a radical ideology foreign to Islam) then what are they ?
There is only one possible answer: for Obama, Biden, Kerry and the administration Mullah Omar and the Taliban (like the mullahs of Iran and their Islamic Republic) are MOSLEMS. Not radical extremists like al-Qaida and ISIS twisting, distorting and perverting the faith; but real, genuine, authentic, normative, moderate, traditional Moslems practicing and applying the true RELIGION OF PEACE. There is no other logical explanation. But how are the Taliban practicing and applying the "religion of (Islamic) peace" when they are fighting and killing our troops on the battlefield and trying to drive us from Afghanistan? What's authentically Islamic and peaceful about that?
Nothing on the surface. It's what's underneath that distinguishes the Taliban from al-Qaida and puts them on the side of true, peaceful, justice-loving Islam. And what's underneath that everyone's missing except the administration is that US and NATO forces are (unintentionally) the bad guys in the conflict.
What that means from Obama's perspective is that unfortunately when our troops invaded Afghanistan we toppled an innocent regime of peaceful, peace-loving Moslems who were minding their own business practicing their peaceful nonviolent faith (true Islam) in ruling over their peaceful country. And our aggression against them pushed them into justified jihad and armed (non-terrorist) insurgency against us. In fighting us the Taliban are acting Islamically applying the just war doctrine of their peaceful faith wanting to restore the status quo ante of their peaceful Islamic regime as would any moderate peace-loving Moslem country that was invaded by a foreign power.
In other words, the Taliban for Obama are victims of the Bush administration's overreacting to the 9/11 attack secretly launched by al-Qaida from Afghanistan unbeknownst to the peaceful nonviolent Taliban regime. If Obama had been the 43rd president instead of 44th history would have been different. There would have been no US invasion of Afghanistan and long 13 year war. Obama with the magic of his splendid personality, Moslem family roots and Middle Eastern middle name name would have greatly impressed and dazzled Mullah Omar succeeding where Bush had failed in making him a partner of the US in its war against al Qaida and global terror.
Of course the Taliban are very much the "terrorist enemies" of our country; and denying this is a crazy Obama leftist appeasement fantasy. Mullah Omar willingly partnered with his buddy bin Laden in his global jihad against the US; and approved his every death-dealing terrorist strike not once publicly dissociating himself and his regime from any one of them. And when given the choice of doing the right thing and cooperating with us in bringing bin Laden to justice or going down in flames Omar chose loyalty to bin Laden over the survival of his regime. And down he went thinking perhaps that Allah would miraculously save him good pius Moslem that he is. Mullah Omar is our unappeasable terrorist enemy hating us more now than before 9/11 because of all the Taliban we killed. And if he returns to power he'll seek vengeance for our crimes against Allah and Islam; and that means partnering with al Qaida all over again as Afghanistan returns to pre-9/11 mode.
SUMMERIZING APOLLO'S ARGUMENT
True blue religion of peace Muslims are neither terrorists nor enemies of the United States. The Taliban, according to the Obama Administration, are neither terrorists nor enemies of the US. Therefore, the Taliban are true blue religion of peace Muslims.