"In a video released Monday, al Qaeda's second in command ridicules President Bush's plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and predicts a fate "worse than anything you have yet seen." Al-Zawahiri cites Bush's plan to send more than 20,000 U.S. troops to Iraq, and asks, "Why not send 50,000 or 100,000?" FBI officials said Monday that U.S. forces found documents at least six months ago indicating al Qaeda in Iraq has aspirations to attack on U.S. soil." ~CNN

Hmmm...immanent threat. So like August 6, 2001 PDB immanent threat? Or Katrina Force Hurricane immanent threat? I'm not sure. And the President's not telling. This threat was discovered six months ago, and yet it's made public the day before his sixth State of the Union Address when his popularity is currently next to nil.

No one is taking George's calls. And he needs to send more troops to Iraq! Why? Something about it being the only way to win. Why they didn't slap a Mission Accomplished sign over a KFC/TGI Friday's/Nike sponsored globally televised execution of Saddam and start bringing troops home the next day, I will never know.

The policies to be set forth in the State of the Union Address are getting a vicious going over both in the international press, and here at home. Taxing our health benefits as income? This is a win for us how? Think, damn it! Your policies have failed. You're presiding over a red hot economy that doesn't know whether to implode or dominate the world, you're out-to-lunch playing at a fantasy with our dime and the lives our fellow citizens, and you want to tax health care as income?

I have no words.

Labels: al-Qa'eda, FUD, Katrina, saddam hussein, Surge

Richard A. Clarke, former counterterrorism coordinator to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush has hit the administration where it hurts. He claims the White House - prior to September 11, 2001 - couldn't be bothered with talk of terrorism. Furthermore, Clarke comments on the administration's obsession with Iraq, not Osama since day one of the administration despite overwhelming intelligence that something big was about to go down.

Before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the White House was hell bent on going to war with Saddam Hussein. So much so that Clarke was pressured to concoct a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. When he refused to do so, he was shuffled off to head a new cyber-terrorism initiative.

As expected the administration has come out with guns blazing. Fortunately for Clarke, he isn't married to a covert CIA agent whose life can be threatened by exposing her identity to the world with a few well placed phone calls. Nevertheless, it's character assassination a-go-go inside the beltway today as the White House fights to keep this story out of American diner conversation. Ain't election years a bitch, George?

Labels: 9/11, al-Qa'eda, bill clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, iraq, Richard A. Clarke, Ronald Reagan, saddam hussein

In those heady days before the first bombs fell in Iraq, when worldwide protests and public outcry had a chance to change the course of world history (before the will of the people took a backseat to ideology in this country), a friend of mine hit me with the old “love it or leave it” argument.

His charge was something along the lines of “If you love Iraq so much, why don’t you go there and see for yourself what kinds of rights and freedoms you’ll enjoy under Saddam’s regime?” Despite my agreement that Saddam Hussein was indeed a colossal fuck-wad, my friend refused to see that my chief concern was not whether or not the man was fit to lead a nation, but whether or not the United States had the right to make that determination, and then act unilaterally against a sovereign government.

International law aside, many of us were also against the war on matters of principle. The Iraq-Al Qa’eda connection never existed. Not to the extent that Bush Administration claimed, and certainly not to extent of the well-known Saudi Arabia-Al Qa’ida connection. The call for war against Iraq simply made no sense to us, but no one would discuss or debate the issue. “Love or leave it,” was the mantra-like answer our questions received.

Some protesters felt very strongly – long before recent revelations - that the Bush Administration was trying to hoodwink the American public by using the War on Terrorism and the search for Bin Laden to generate support for a war against Iraq. These individuals knew then that the so-called “evidence” against Iraq was fabricated and massaged to fit the Bush Administration’s ideology of war-at-any-cost. One such individual was a retired schoolteacher: Faith Fippinger.

Fippinger was one of a score Americans who traveled to Iraq before the war began to act as a “human shield.” This group was joined by as many as 300 others from nations around the world. Their intent: To serve as a deterrent for an unjust war. Shortly after their presence was noted in the international media, it was made known that these peace-niks would enjoy no special consideration from the U.S. Military when the bullets began flying.

Despite this, many peace protesters stayed on in Iraq as long as they dared. Their efforts were in vain. The Bush Administration ignored the global demand for diplomacy, and sent the United States, Briton, and the “Coalition of the Willing” (comprised of countries most Americans can’t even locate on a map, much less pronounce) into war.

Adding insult to injury the Bush Administration, through the U.S. Treasury Department (a.k.a the U.S. Secret Service) has served Fippinger with fines totaling in excess of $10,000 for her trip to Iraq. They claim her actions were in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iraq, and that she can either pay-up or face up to 12 years in prison for the crimes of her insolence.

For her part, Fippinger has stated that she would not pay, declaring, "I will not contribute money to the United States government to continue the buildup of its arsenal of weapons." To which officials responded with the threat of increased fines or the garnishing of her retirement pay, her Social Security check or her other assets.

It’s not as bad as living under Saddam yet, but we seem one step closer to tyranny nonetheless.

Labels: activism, al-Qa'eda, anti-war, Faith Fippinger, iraq, Secret Service

Via Sydney Morning Herald, Australia:

US raid to snare bin Laden

"A thousand American troops raided a region of Afghanistan known to be occupied by al-Qa'eda and Taliban fighters in a bid to snare Osama bin Laden and his sons yesterday."

Labels: al-Qa'eda, Osama bin Laden, Shock and Awe, Taliban