Is Dick Finally Going to Go After OBL?

The NYT has a disturbing story this morning, explaining that, with the US policy in tatters after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, they’re considering ratcheting up the pressure by allowing the CIA to partner with the Special Forces on operations in Pakistan.

President Bush’s senior national security advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

The debate is a response to intelligence reports that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are intensifying efforts there to destabilize the Pakistani government, several senior administration officials said.

[snip]

Several of the participants in the meeting argued that the threat to the government of President Pervez Musharraf was now so grave that both Mr. Musharraf and Pakistan’s new military leadership were likely to give the United States more latitude, officials said. But no decisions were made, said the officials, who declined to speak for attribution because of the highly delicate nature of the discussions.

Many of the specific options under discussion are unclear and highly classified. Officials said that the options would probably involve the C.I.A. working with the military’s Special Operations forces.

Two pseudonymous counter-insurgency analysts cross-posting at Danger Zone have a good response to this:

Now if this was going to be a low-key, under-the-radar affair like our work in the the Horn of Africa or the excellent program in Mindinao in the Southern Philippines, Charlie would be on board. But there are two conditions that support those operations that simply are not present in Pakistan.

  1. A welcoming and cooperative government, whose armed forces take the lead in ground operations.
  2. Little in the way of media coverage or Pentagon/Foggy Bottom meddling.

Unfortunately, there will be meddling a-plenty, and the 10,000 mile screwdriver will be in full effect in Pakistan, no matter how covert the program wants to be. There was a time where aggressive, kinetic counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan could have been effective. We’ve long since past it. Which is exactly why Musharraf might let us in now. We’ll go ahead and add Pakistan’s tribal areas and Northwest frontier to our ever-growing list of "too little, too late."

And another thing: what, exactly, would exactly the special forces do in Pakistan? The easiest (and only by comparison) might be snatch-and-grab operations. But they’re also the least strategically significant; they don’t change the endgame of a growing Jihadi movement directed against the Pakistani government (and one divorced from the older Islamist establishment). At worst, a never ending game of a whack-a-mole feeds jihadi recruitment and further undermines Musharraf. Does the Bush administration want to try and own the tribal areas? You and whose army? No literally, which army? It’s not gonna be ours. And the Pakistani one is alternately busy focusing on India and getting kidnapped by the very Taliban they’re supposed to be fighting.

[snip]

So, what gives? Anyone seen a mission statement around here?

I’d add one more big caution to this (on top of the obvious one that everyone on earth would be better off if the incompetents running this government didn’t try to add to their failures with another clever non-plan). According to reports, the US repeatedly advised Benazir Bhutto not to employ US security forces, for fear that it would only inflame extremists. Now admittedly, I wouldn’t advise putting more Blackwater thugs into any politically inflamed area, but you’re telling me Bhutto couldn’t have competent security but now it’s a good idea to throw more kerosene on the fire of the tribal areas by putting our Special Forces in?

All that said, I wonder. Pakistan is only the latest of this Administration’s great clusterfucks, in which we’ve turned a nuclear-armed ally into an increasingly effective shelter for the guys who hit us on 9/11. They’re really at the point where they risk being seen as the worst possible failures in history, particularly in foreign policy, unless they have a really dramatic success.

So I wonder–are they finally deciding they ought to finish the unfinished business from 9/11? If Osama bin Laden really is, as reported, in Pakistan’s tribal areas, is this just a bid to get the guy Bush promised he’d get "Dead or Alive"?

image_print
67 replies
  1. Mr.Cbl says:

    Perhaps a distraction from the coming skermish with Iran. Very disturbing news about the Navy this week end.

  2. bobschacht says:

    No, I think we need to consider that the Pakistan Desk is in the OVP, and since Darth Cheney has been thwarted in his desire for war with Iran, Pakistan is what he’s got left. Since we have no ground troops to spare, he’ll have to use bombers and Blackwater agents, who are too visible in Iraq these days, but who’ll notice in Pakistan’s tribal area? Other than the local tribespeople, that is. And they don’t have press credentials.

    Bob in HI

    • emptywheel says:

      One of the things I saw this weekend is that a lot of the money we’re “investing” in Pakistan is in training people recruited from the tribal areas.

      Does anyone else think this might not be a good idea?

      • MadDog says:

        One of the things I saw this weekend is that a lot of the money we’re “investing” in Pakistan is in training people recruited from the tribal areas.

        Does anyone else think this might not be a good idea?

        I had previously commented that the US’s plan to spend $750 Million in “pacifying” folks in Pakistan’s tribal areas is kinda like buying a gun for the person who is going to mug you.

        Deadeye figures that if it worked with Iraq’s Sunni Triangle, why not with Pakistan’s Tribal Areas.

        And of course, Deadeye is completely deaf the any suggestion that the Sunni’s in Iraq are anything now but his BFFs.

      • Ann in AZ says:

        One of the things I saw this weekend is that a lot of the money we’re “investing” in Pakistan is in training people recruited from the tribal areas.

        Does anyone else think this might not be a good idea?

        Funny you should mention that; see my previous comment. So, you’re thinking they’re practically inviting people to infiltrate?

        • emptywheel says:

          I just wonder whether it’s a good idea to train a bunch of folks from the same area of Pakistan as where we trained a bunch of mujahadeen in the 1980s.

          • freepatriot says:

            I just wonder whether it’s a good idea to train a bunch of folks from the same area of Pakistan as where we trained a bunch of mujahadeen in the 1980s.

            george bush says the jury is still out on that question

            but george really liked “Charlie Wilson’s War” so …

          • Ann in AZ says:

            I just wonder whether it’s a good idea to train a bunch of folks from the same area of Pakistan as where we trained a bunch of mujahadeen in the 1980s.

            Well, that too. They’re getting pretty adept at taking our training and our weapons and then turning it on ourselves. If we’re stupid enough to let that happen again, then we deserve it.

            • JimWhite says:

              Well, duh. How about all the money and weapons to the Sunnis in Iraq who now are miraculously against al Qaeda. How long will that last?

              • Ann in AZ says:

                Well, duh. How about all the money and weapons to the Sunnis in Iraq who now are miraculously against al Qaeda. How long will that last?

                It won’t! If it wasn’t so tragic, it would be funny how ridiculous we are. Or should I say, insane, since we do seem to always do the same things expecting different results.

      • masaccio says:

        It isn’t the training, it’s giving them money and weapons that is scary. Surely we aren’t going to make the same mistake in Pakistan we made in Iraq, by arming all sides.

        • bmaz says:

          I dunno masaccio, this group repetitively repeats the mistakes of history. They seem almost genetically wired in this regard.

    • bobschacht says:

      “Any thoughts on reporting from CNN on Iranian boats “threatening” US ships in the Strait of Hormuz?”

      This is the Iranian’s way of sticking a thumb in Dick’s eye and saying, “You ain’t got nothin’, and we know it,” without really risking much. We got more to worry from an Israeli attack on Iran– but if they do, Iran will take it out on us in Iraq.

      Bob in HI

      • emptywheel says:

        I’m not sure I entirely buy the US version, at this point. Remember this area has a lot of disputed territory (which played inot the British standoff). So maybe the US was trying to incite, it didn’t work, and now they’re making shit up to try to incite.

        I think some day fifty years from today, people will be able to point to key bad deals that Bush and allied world leaders make in person (such as Tony Blair’s trip to the US just as it became clear, in June-July 2003, that their intelligence was all bunk, or some other key trips Blair made). And I doubt this trip to Israel is any different.

        • bobschacht says:

          “. . . Remember this area has a lot of disputed territory (which played inot the British standoff). So maybe the US was trying to incite, it didn’t work, and now they’re making shit up to try to incite.”

          There’s disputed territory all over the Middle East, alright. Not just Israel & Palestine, and the Golan Heights, but all along the Iran-Iraq border (remember, they fought a long, bitter war over their common border), including the river and sea boundary near Basra and on into the Gulf; and the border between Kuwait and Iraq. Not to mention the situation in which the Kurds are artificially split up, by post WW-I boundaries, into 3 countries (Turkey, Iran & Iraq). And not to mention the emerging issue of the internal border between Iraqi Kurdistan and the Sunni provinces of Iraq (like which part of Iraq Kirkuk is supposed to be in), etc.

          Bob in HI

    • JamesJoyce says:

      We bought the Gulf of Tonkin in 64 hook line and sinker, why not be brainwashed again this time…….

    • MadDog says:

      This is Iran’s not-so-subtle welcome for Junya’s trip this Wednesday to Israel where the Israeli Government is hoping to get a “green light” for their kickoff of WW III.

      And yes, Deadeye asked them to invite Junya.

      And the Iranian’s message? They weren’t saying Shalom!

  3. JimWhite says:

    Any chance the spread of the Sibel Edmonds story contributed to the timing here? Seems like many of the same players are involved.

    • emptywheel says:

      Sibel’s story, in general outlines, has been out there fore years. What is new about her stuff this weekend would threaten US figures (the Richard Perles of the world), not the Pakistanis involved. And I doubt there will be any imminent threat to the Americans involved.

      So, no, I don’t think there’s a connection in the timing.

  4. merkwurdiglieber says:

    The bunker mentality at work in this one. Putting any personnel, private
    or military, into those areas is a suicide move if I ever saw one. There
    must be some relationship to the middle east trip potus is embarking on,
    some idea of a coordinated Israeli, Indian, US squeeze play… but it is
    the most volatile thing imaginable, which is why they just might be serious. Wierd scenes inside the goldmine…

  5. JamesJoyce says:

    Sacrifice Bhutto to get a republican win in 09′. We assisted in the murder of her father in the late 70’s. Do you really think anything has changed? Fear, Fear, Fear, This has “his” thumbprint all over it!

    • bigbrother says:

      Bingo. Bhutto’s demise was planned by state for a year. She was sent to destabilise Pakistan by her “sacrifice for democracy”. The rethug election effort has been in big trouble from git go. They need some distractions. By upping the war talk deja vu 9/11 they can start turning the terrorist warning lights back on to tip the scales of public opinion to conservatism. Demos are ‘weak on defense’.
      There is no winning game in the ME, they made sure of that, it is an angry hornets nest.
      CENTCON does not have anything in their playbook for this. The logistics are a military nightmare.
      Best play for the rethugs is the war bluff or better yet for thwm get anoither one going. Four clusterfucks may turn the tide of public fear. IMPEACHMENT is the answer.
      Congress cannot allow this Pakistan preemtive attack. Situation normal for Bush SAFU.

  6. merkwurdiglieber says:

    It must be a deliberate provocation, more of the applied chaos theory
    the neocons hold to as a universal widget when all else fails as it so
    obviously has.

  7. klynn says:

    So we “get” OBL and that’s it right? Our boys can come home…right?

    Righhhhhht……..

    What WAS I thinking?

    As for Sibel’s story…I have one thought…AIPAC.

  8. merkwurdiglieber says:

    Diplomacy is another dish best served cold, as Washington warned in his
    farewell address. So called personal diplomacy is usually a fool’s errand,
    just think of all those Kissinger trips that were just so much PR or
    duplicity that guaranteed more war. This does not pass the smell test.

  9. Hans says:

    I think it would be great if, first thing in office, President Hillary or President Obama (even President Giuliani) went out and got bin Laden.

    • emptywheel says:

      Particularly if it were President Hillary. She would face the assumption that women aren’t tough enough to rule the greatest empire until she pulled off something like that. Plus, it would utterly emasculate the Neocons.

  10. Redshift says:

    I could certainly see Cheney thinking that the only possible way the GOP can win in ‘08 is if they get bin Laden, and if they don’t get him, dealing with the destabilizing effect on Pakistan will be the Democrats’ problem. Just the kind of conditions to encourage a partisan ideologue like Cheney to go for broke, even if there’s only a tiny chance of success.

    (Personally, I think that even if they did get him at this point, the reaction wouldn’t be “hail our glorious leaders,” but “what the hell took you so long?”, but even that wouldn’t change the calculation.)

    • looseheadprop says:

      I could certainly see Cheney thinking that the only possible way the GOP can win in ‘08 is if they get bin Laden, and if they don’t get him, dealing with the destabilizing effect on Pakistan will be the Democrats’ problem. Just the kind of conditions to encourage a partisan ideologue like Cheney to go for broke, even if there’s only a tiny chance of success.

      I’ve got the flu and a really high fever today, which is why I offer this crazy sounding tin foil hat theory:

      OBL is a 6′6″ guy in land of short people,he is on dialysis. How hard could it be to find him? What if it is merely time to scoop him up now that his value as a boogey man (”be afraid, be very afrod”) is diminished?

      Ex-Mr.Prop used to be an extraction paratrooper (orginal search and rescue for wounded soldiers, later search and snatch of enemy commanders). He has insisted all along that the Admin knows where OBL is and will snatch and display him, when it is most politically expediant for them to do so.

      And he LOVES LOVES LOVES Bush/Cheney, so cycnisim from him on this point resonates with me.

  11. LS says:

    Cheney’s ultimate reason for being in power at all is to secure his “energy” interests for himself and his cronies. This is about oil, pipelines, access to the Gulf, etc.

    Bin Laden, at this point in history, is a mythical bogeyman that the neocons use to justify everything they do to the boneheads that believe anything they say. If he gets coughed up…if he’s even alive…it will be theatrics.

    Also, remember that Cheney said that Iran is the “jewel” or something like that.

    Oil, oil, oil….this is all about strategic control of oil.

    • merkwurdiglieber says:

      The term pipelineistan issn’t used for nothing… with Kristol now
      spewing neocon code from the editorial page of the grey lady what better
      time for the bold stroke, provoke a crisis in Pakistan, intervene to sieze
      control of their nukes, disarm Pakistan and divide up the territories,
      even Kashmir and, presto, middle east transformed, Kristol gets his
      grand strategy merit badge and a successor inherits an utter nightmare.

  12. der1 says:

    Incompetents is right. What Cheney and Bush watched “Wilson’s War” last week and came up with this “NEW IDEA!”?

    “You’ve got to be here and engaged, which we are, as a country … as a country team,” Maxwell said. “You’ve got to have patience. This takes a long time.”…

    from the link: Special Forces Lend Hand to Counterparts

    Dozens of U.S. Special Forces soldiers, many fresh from combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, have found themselves in a new role fighting the war on terror in the southern Philippines.

    As one soldier with experience in Afghanistan explained, it’s tough to transition from actively fighting an enemy downrange to “advising and assisting” the Philippine military in the fight against the Abu Sayyaf terror group in the steamy jungles of Jolo, Mindanao and Basilan islands. But, he added, he understands the local population has to learn to trust its own government and military.

    The U.S. soldiers — National Guardsmen with the 19th Special Forces Group — are part of the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines. They are not allowed to actively engage the enemy, and they can return fire only if attacked.

    *** In 1972 I was part of an “engineering detachment” of the 1st Special Forces Group that spent 6 months in PI “advising” the Philippine Army Engineers the advice to our southern Mindanao team was the same 35 years ago as it is today. And there were some in uniform and there were some who wore civilian clothes assigned to the CIA’s arm in JUSMAG, same as today. Take time? I guess this is McCain’s 100 years war.

    These guys are like used car salesmen: put some WD 40 on the rusty hinges, dump 2 cans of STP in the gas tank, change the oil, and hope the piece of shit makes it down the block, then on with the next sales pitch or big con. Stupid, stupid people. But we’re not giving handouts to any “welfare queens” so I guess that’s a good thing.

  13. freepatriot says:

    mushi wants some American boots on the ground, in case mushi needs a lift out of town real fast

    otherwise this isn’t going to happen

    visions of the spring of 1975

  14. skdadl says:

    I don’t see that “getting” bin Laden is anywhere near as serious as taking apart all the tangled webs that led to him in the first place and then have allowed him to escape all this time. Well: I suppose if you had helped to spin those webs, you might want to “get” him, principally to shut down more serious investigations.

    I found the original NYT article credulous, but it was indeed helpful and tonic to read Charlie. Mind you, it was also chilling to me to read Charlie, with his enthusiasm for “our work in the the Horn of Africa” or the Philippines. Lots of tactical smarts there, but not a lot of historical or international-political wisdom.

  15. Eureka Springs says:

    Doesn’t history show when CIA has unfettered attack orders that almost always ends up instigating civil war? If so, what does Cheney win by instigating civil war in Pakistan? I think LS is pointing in the correct direction.. Future pipelines..not just oil, but natural gas. I think Cheney would also approve of unrest spilling out in nearly all directions from Pakistan, particularly Iran and open areas of Afghanistan.

    The PNAC crowd still see themselves in a long war in which they have just begun.

    • MadDog says:

      The PNAC crowd still see themselves in a long war in which they have just begun.

      And remember, a true Repug believer just knows they can never really lose.

      If a Democrat should take the WH in 2008, then it will be the Democrat’s fault for losing the GWOT.

      Just like it is the Democrat’s fault right now that we’re not winning the GWOT.

      See how simple that is?

      Shorter Repugs “Simple I am. And pleased to be so!”

      • Eureka Springs says:

        We cannot let the Dems off the hook.. In the last year troops and funding have increased dramatically. All Obama (for example) wants is “actionable intel” and he’s all for moving into Pakistan.

        A awful lot of National Guard troops are moving right now. In the late nite threads of FDL over half a dozen folks from different states reported news casts this weekend of troop deployments.

  16. nomolos says:

    This administration has a need to look relevant rather than lame duck and ineffectual.

    Crazy schemes like chasing OBL and getting snippy with Iran at the time when the chimp is going over to give Olmert a BJ are just more examples of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    We should be going after the real terrorists in this country and impeach the devils now.

  17. Ann in AZ says:

    If they’re planning on going in with the CIA and black ops or Special Forces units, can Blackwater be far behind? They will definitely have to secure those loose nukes. If we weren’t in this position with one arm tied behind our backs because of Iraq, we might not have to hire mercenaries to do our fighting.

    The last I heard is that Blackwater will hire soldiers of fortune from a number of different countries to fulfill their contracts, and we are contracting in greater and greater numbers. One basic argument against hired guns is that they tend to make themselves available to the highest bidder. At some point, Blackwater could easily be infiltrated by personnel that can turn on a dime, pivot right into the other side. Why do they keep telling us that things are getting safer? More importantly, why do Americans keep believing it?

    • nomolos says:

      As one who fought the draft back in “the day” I do believe that we must bring back the draft as a way to stop Blackwater and companies like them The “need” to hire soldiers of fortune will be obviated with a comprehensive draft.

      • Ann in AZ says:

        As one who fought the draft back in “the day” I do believe that we must bring back the draft as a way to stop Blackwater and companies like them The “need” to hire soldiers of fortune will be obviated with a comprehensive draft.

        Well, I think you have something there. Regrettably, it may become necessary to reinstate the draft, but I’d like to see how the next president handles foreign affairs, and what s/he thinks. The problem is getting through this period wherein Bush is the lame duck dedicated to destruction of the ME. But the Rangel option is always out there.

        • freepatriot says:

          when you start talking about a “Draft”, you DO realize that any soldier drafted will have to be trained for TWO YEARS before he is qualified to go into the field

          right ???

          the recent uptick in draft talk is mostly over the political implications, but I worry about the battlefield consequences of such a move

          so I like to make sure people know what we’re signing up for

            • freepatriot says:

              I was thinking of the day I watched American soldiers aboard US warships in the south Pacific ocean, pushing helicopters overboard after all the people jumped out, the day the North Vietnamese overran Siagon (does anybody call it Siagon anymore)

              and I’ll admit I had strains of the MASH theme running thru my head at the time …

              thru early morning fog I see

              visions of the things to be …

              I don’t know exactly why, but I relate that song more to Vietnam that to Korea

              maybe cuz I was alive and cognent during the Vietnam war, but not during the Korean War

              I just know we’re gonna see those helios again

              • BayStateLibrul says:

                “Pocket knives, dog tags, mosquito repellant, chewing gum”
                Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, reminds me of the Vietnam War…

                “If you don’t care for obscenity, you don’t care for the truth: if you
                don’t care for the truth, watch how you vote”

                I’m guessing some GI is writing O’Briens sequel with the Iraq War…

          • Ann in AZ says:

            when you start talking about a “Draft”, you DO realize that any soldier drafted will have to be trained for TWO YEARS before he is qualified to go into the field

            right ???

            That’s funny, because all the people I know that talked about their service, their entire tour was 2 years. They had six weeks of basic and off the Viet Nam, IIRC. So, WTF?

            Personally, I would much prefer to close down a lot of unnecessary bases because our foreign policy has changed from hegemony to something more conciliatory. But the way things are going, and given that all these war mongers are also citizens who get a say in how our country acts, I’m afraid the only way to convince some people of the error of their ways is to induct their kids.

            I have no idea what would motivate a person to join this war in Iraq voluntarily, but apparently now that there is a war of choice on the board, a lot less people are motivated and the recruitment centers are having a hard time meeting their quotas. The truth is, now we supposedly don’t have any ready reserve left. Something’s gotta give. Either we’re going to put our country’s potential defense in the hands of mercenaries from many countries with a profit motive, or we need to reduce the need for soldiers and let Blackwater go work for the highest bidder, or we need to reinstitute the draft. Unless you can think of other ways to do what needs to be done.

            • freepatriot says:

              That’s funny, because all the people I know that talked about their service, their entire tour was 2 years. They had six weeks of basic and off the Viet Nam, IIRC

              yeah, and look how good that turned out

              go to DKOS, search for “soonergrunt” and read some of his diaries, it’s in there somewhere

              the man trains soldiers for a living (when george bush isn’t using him as bait in Afghanistan)

              soonergrunt says it, all the Generals say it, all the military history says it

              there ain’t any dispute about this in military circles

              and the results of sending untrained soldiers into combat hasn’t changed in 7000 years (see 1st Bull Run, 1st Manassas)

                • freepatriot says:

                  last I heard, he was defending our freedom in Afghanistan (he didn’t understand how any better than I did)

                  that, and trying to keep his soldiers alive

                  we don’t get much time for correspondence, and the Army discourages that sort of thing …

              • Ann in AZ says:

                and the results of sending untrained soldiers into combat hasn’t changed in 7000 years (see 1st Bull Run, 1st Manassas)

                That may well be; in fact, I’ll go so far as to say I’m quite sure it’s true. But the fact remains that my niece’s stepson, who has just one kidney, joined up and showed up at the time he was told to. He had six weeks of basic and he is at Camp Liberty currently, I think. BTW, supposedly he is not in the line of fire due to the fact that he has only one kidney (that’s what he tells his family anyway. He’s recently married), but he is skilled. He already was a trained mechanic and they retrained him to fix things like humvees and tanks.

          • freepatriot says:

            Rangel made a proposal for a draft in a bill during bush’s administration (can’t remember when)

            you woulda though the man farted in church or something

            but he did make the effort

          • Ann in AZ says:

            According to an article from the AP published by MSNBC on Nov. 20, 2006, Charlie Rangel has offered several bills regarding reinstituting the draft, one in 2003 and one that was expected to be proposed sometime earlier this year. The article states:

            Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

  18. rapt says:

    In the original post, “Pakistan is…shelter for the guys who hit us on 9/11.”

    Most of us were able to conclude long ago that the 19 hijackers story is a fairytale (no evidence), that the OBL videos etc. are fabrications. Plenty other (lack of) evidence shows the sham for what it is.

    So today we are playing a game called *Who Is Going To Go Get OBL?*. How better to validate the propaganda than to discuss it as if it is all true?

  19. Hmmm says:

    Off the top of my head, a theory to try on:

    1. Cheney pushes to go into Pakistan “unilaterally” (actually with tacit Mush approval).
    2. American people are told it’s Cheney’s project
    3. OBL conveniently captured just before R convention
    4. Convention nominates by acclaim the war hero and America’s savior Cheney as Prez (remember that’s how he got the VP nom in the first place in 2000) — thus bypassing entire primaries mechanism
    5. Cheney reluctantly (yeahright) accepts
    6. Election in November tilted as necessary. Sadly probably not much tilting needed.
    7. Prez Dick.

    Result: Eight more years of power for Team Dick, only this time without pesky amateur meddlesome Team W.

    Kristol did “joke” about Cheney 4 Prez Sunday before last.

    • Rayne says:

      They’re just making a point about the definition of crazy — you know, doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

  20. wavpeac says:

    Of course to them there is no mistake. Wars are good. Wars are a cure for global warming, you know? They are a cure for a bad economy and they get things done for the upper crust.

    The cost of lives is not of concern because the view is very darwin, survival of the fittest (so perfectly republican to completely reject the theory that supports their behavior). So for them, loss of life, loss of us poor folks is simply part of the process. We don’t have anything to live for, really. So best to kill us off, take care of the population problem, create some destruction for job growth, lower the population of the world to decrease the pressure on earth’s resources. It’s all good.

    Unfortunately this view is at the very bottom, foundation of “the movement”. Only certain select few are of “value” and those folks get to make all the rules. Dying in a war is a just part of the consequences of not being one of the “chosen few.” And it is all covered up in a pro life movement with a big pretty bow so we don’t see the truth of it all. Our only value to them, is making them money.

  21. orionATL says:

    i notice your blog roll includes “cannon fire”, which just happened to be the first weblog i ever read ( re: bush carry a transponder into the debates).

    i never have seen this weblog mentioned by other weblogs until now. i assumed that the site was “unacceptable” to the (surprisingly to me) cautious weblog world.

    delighted to see cannon mentioned.

    and another of my favorites – “anonymous liberal” – one of the hardest thinking minds in the weblog world, and one of the most informative for me.

    balkinization is also a fabulous resource for clueless but curious lads like orion.

Comments are closed.