Fire Hydrant of Freedom

GM, Truthfully, I do not know the connection between Hamas and the Muslim brotherhood......Iam intrested to hear. I don't make any claims to know more than the average Joe and the mideast is a complicated Zoo.

Guro Crafty, I do also understand what your saying and beleive it to be true. I did watch the CNN show last night Muslim warriors and thought it to be a little on the sympathetically, skewed side. I was not overly impressed.

Buzwardo can shuck insult to me all he wishes thats fine......Truth be....I do know the facts about the article posted by GM written by CA......I'am also well aware of how it was/is worded and how it sounds......but truth is the articlle may be slanted but it is not untrue.....pretty sure if it were.......some of our resident brain surgeons would have pointed it out to me rather than post nothingness.  That option is still there.

Guro Crafty knows me hopefully well enough to know that just because I have taken up a position.....its not predominatly one I believe.
The thing with me is I want to also know how other people think rather than take my stance and stand soley on that.
Thats kinda how I try to maintain balance.......From time to time I play devils advocate to provoke what I beielve to be educated conversation.
This forum IS one that gives good views and has a very solid knowledge base.......and just for the record......I consider myself a pretty conservative right winger.......(with balance) Take it for what its worth.
                                                                               TG

GM, Uh...... thats the same article you hyper linked in your previous post.
All I get from  the articel is it overstates the obvious.......Call it spin if you like.....but is there a particular part thats untrue?
                                                                                 TG

Woof, After reading your post I read this wikipedia section on her. Why is it that you do not trust her?
                                                                               TG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiane_Amanpour

Christiane Amanpour
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Christiane Amanpour, CBE, (born January 12, 1958) (in Persian: کریستین امان‌پور) is the chief international correspondent for CNN.
 
[edit] Biography
Shortly after her birth in London, her British mother Patricia, and her father Mohammed, an Iranian airline executive, moved the family to Tehran. The Amanpours led a privileged life under the regime of the Shah of Iran.[citation needed] At age 11, she returned to England to attend first the Holy Cross Convent School in Buckinghamshire, England, and then the New Hall School, an exclusive Roman Catholic girls' school. Her family had to flee Iran after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Amanpour moved to the United States to study journalism at the University of Rhode Island. During her time at URI she worked in the News Department at WBRU-FM Providence.

After graduation, she worked for NBC affiliate WJAR in Providence, Rhode Island as an electronic graphics designer.[1] In 1983, she was hired by CNN. In 1989, she was posted to Frankfurt, Germany, where she reported on the democratic revolutions sweeping Eastern Europe at the time. However, it was her coverage of the Persian Gulf War that followed Iraq's occupation of Kuwait in 1990 that made her famous. Thereafter, she reported from the Bosnian war and many other conflict zones. Her emotional delivery from Sarajevo during the Siege of Sarajevo led some viewers and critics to question her professional objectivity, to which she replied, "There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn't mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing."[2]

From 1996-2005, she contracted with CBS to file four to five in-depth, international news reports a year as a special contributor on that network's newsmagazine program, 60 Minutes. These reports garnered a Peabody Award in 1998, adding to the Peabody she was awarded in 1993.

In 1993, she was also awarded the George Polk Award for Television Reporting. Again in 1996 she, along with Anita Pratap, received the George Polk Award for Foreign Television Reporting for their story "Battle for Afghanistan," which aired on CNN.

Based out of CNN's London bureau, Amanpour is one of the most recognized international correspondents on American television. Her willingness to work in dangerous conflict zones has reportedly made her one of the more highly (if not the highest) paid field reporters in the world. She speaks English, Persian, and French fluently. Forbes magazine has named her one of the 100 Most Powerful Women.

She has had many memorable moments in her career, one of them being a telephone interview with Yasser Arafat during the siege on his compound in March 2002, during which Chairman Arafat hung up on her.[1] Another was landing the first and only post-election interview of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by a Western journalist in 2005, despite some trepidation that this strident disciple of the now deceased Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini would raise the issue of the Amanpour family's ties to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was deposed by a revolution led by Khomeini with Ahmadinejad's active involvement. The interview came off without a hitch.

She received an honorary doctorate degree from the University of Michigan in 2006 for her contributions to journalism.

She was made a CBE in the 2007 Queen's Birthday

I think the real problem with the tv news is not as to weather they report fact or quality, but more what they report....IE pro or negetive......In other words whats reported on tv is not well recieved on this forum.
Lets face it, when a broadcast is made thats seen round the world there has to be a certain amount of credibility to it.....As for the ken and Barbie anchors that report it........who cares what the person looks like thats bringing the news as long as they bring it.
As for not reading the posts that are posted in response to conversation......I onley recall Guro Crafty of late pointing out that a particular post was in fact made as a response to a question or Idea...any that I know or knew were posted as respones I READ.
I do read a good many of the articles posted here or at least in part......I'am getting the impression here that the thought is I don't read ANY......simply not true. I read them as time permits....often theres simply too many or the post is too long.

I have read Micheal Yons blog......and its good......though it is a feel good about whats going on view....and it is onley ONE mans blog.....hardley can one man cover a entire war on his BLOG.
Funny that you make that acknowledgement that there is a "nationlistic impulse" the way I hear things from this forum is that its all AQ or blood thirsty "JIHADISTS"
No one has yet told me how we identify AQ as AQ.....but they sure get blammed for everything......I think that quite conveniant.......Hope someone will be able soon to tell me how AQ are positivley identified.
In closing, My opinon is that its quite a stretch that we went into Iraq to fight terrorists, AQ or Jihadists....which is now the popular line.
I remember when it was regime change, and to bring a free and democratic  government that was to be a model to the mideast, and Sadaam and his Bathist party were the terrorists

Anyway I'am often reminded of a quote from Johnny Cochran at the OJ Simpson trial:
"They have their version of the truth, we have our version of the truth.....then theres the truth"
He smiled and walked away...
                                                                    TG
By the way........the approval rating on the Iraq war falls into the 30% percentile range to me that means....if I hear this forum right...70% of America and most of our allies, and the world are wrong.

Doug, If you read my post from sunday night I agreed that you need not engage my posts any longer..maybe it was not translated well but it was what I meant.
Feel free to not answer my posts as they will not be directed towards you personally from this point further......with the exception of my last comment
You and I seem to be crossing paths in a simple agreement...Oil and who gets it....now your talking strategy in Iraq.
Still even if AQ did get control of Iraqs oil....they would have to sell it to finance their Jihad (agreed)We could still buy it

Not to mention we want it as bad or worse than they do....By the way a gallon of gas in Iraq is 5dollars for those who can afford to buy it.
One last comment on "who" we are fighting in Iraq.......Lets for sake of argument reverse our roles, Iraq has invaded the U.S. and started to kick down our doors and impose its will on us.
How would you respond?
Not to mention "Shock and Awe" prior to kicking down our doors
Need I remind you that for some strange reason we were not greeted as "liberators"

Then again as you informed me that was "the first Iraq war" where we were fighting Sadaam....pretty sure that was our best chance at being the good guys
Now that were in the Second Iraq war.....pretty sure were back to being the great Satan
Sure hope this all works out and we all get a geat big Hug from the people of Iraq.....when we finally convince them we know whats best for them, or klll them for thier own good.
                                                       TG

Doug,I don't plan a long response. I think it quite conveniant that you equate Iraq in two seperate wars. The second would not be going on had we not created the "vacuum" as you state it. Thats true plain and simple...we gave the jihadists a battle ground that they did not have before....
I notice you did not respond to my assertion that there were better places world wide to confront Jihadists....so how do you feel about the Sudan?
Anyway......Just something for you to consider in your quest to justify this war that we started.
There are 110,000 missing ak47's that were issued to Iraqi's that we were training.
Are you Understanding that what your saying is that we were training 110,000 terrorists until they took off with the weapons?
If that be true then I say were pretty damn carless with who we give weapons to and certainly have no business being a super power.
We know that these 110,000 were not Bathists as we banned them from this type of authority.
forget about what you think my previous statement implies and look at it from a realsistc perspective.
Were we training 110,000 terrorists or not.
                                                                                      TG

I have been trying to stimulate some conversation from some of the "hawks" that fly this forum....so far not much has transpired....I do thank Doug for engaging me....with practical reasoning.
While I await his response from my previous post I did a little googling over this missing weapons supplied by us to the Iraqis.....
A little googling was all that was needed evidently this is more widley known than I thought.
Heres what I found.....missing 110,000 ak47's from a190,000 supplied by us to train Iraqi troops, also missing 80,000 pistols 80,000 pieces of body armor and 25,000 helmets.
Who got them? apparently troops we trained who defected to the other side.....there in lies the problem in Iraq. We are trying to help people who don't like us(understatement) or even want our help....
I think we have little to complain about when it comes to Iran supplying arms to Iraqi's when weve lost the numbers of military hardware thats been reported.....forget what we don't know to be missing.
Heres another intresting piece of info I found out......GENERAL PATREOUS was leading the security training when these weapons came up missing.......good to know hes now leading the whole show.
Will wonders never cease.
If your a military carreer guy I guess its a good for business to train those who want to kill you.....guess the deal would be don't teach them toooo much.
 WHO ARE WE FIGHTING AGAIN?                                                                       TG

Doug, Thanks for your response. I honsetly know nothing of this writer and happend upon this piece while searching for articles concerning our strategy in Iraq.
Bias I can deal with. You have to admit a lot of articles posted here are loaded with bias.
What you don't seem to do is argue that at least in some context this mans article is for the most part true....even if it is "overstated or sloppy with the facts"
I mean you didn't argue any part of this article to be a lie or do you?
See.....We accuse the liberal media of onley reporting on the negatives of the war......but yet their stories are also true, something we seem to have a hard time accepting.
How about those 110,000 ak47's and the 80,000 pistols that we lost....
There in lies my biggest gripe about the war in Iraq.....incompitance and a resolve to win.....
My idea of how we should have proceeded with this war is.......Since we opted to go in, in mass we should have put that country in lock down and slowley opened it up as peace was restored.....this we should have done from the start we never did and even with the TOO LATE surge were still not committed to a total war.
You can't fight a war onley going half way and expect to win.
I think we could have won....or could win....but we would have to get real mean and bloody....and we are not willing to do this.....so we will lose.
In closing let me ask you a question........after 4years or however long weve been in Iraq.....Are you satisfied with how things have gone and are going....and do you think its been worth the money, the lives of both American and Iraqi's and the cost thats yet to be paid....in additional lives and the rebuilding of Iraq aftter this is someday over?
Let me additionally ask you what is considered a victory in Iraq?                                                             TG

this seems to be a well written piece......Comments?

http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Analyses_12/America_s_Illusory_Strategy_in_Iraq.shtml

America's Illusory Strategy in Iraq
By David Gardner, Financial Times 9/8/07
Aug 13, 2007 - 8:49:51 AM

 Email this article
 Printer friendly page
 
They will savour the solipsism of a Paul Bremer, the US viceroy whose disbandment of the Iraqi army left 400,000 men destitute and bitter, but armed, trained and prey to the insurgency then taking shape - but whose memoir paints him as a MacArthur of Mesopotamia.
 

  They will be awed by the arrogance and fecklessness of a Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary and theorist of known unknowns, who summed up the descent into anarchy and looting in the hours after Baghdad fell (when, very possibly, Iraq was lost) - "Stuff happens".


But their research will be greatly assisted by the diligence of the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of the US Congress, which keeps on unearthing the bottomless depths of incompetence behind the Bush administration's misconceived adventure in Iraq.

  This week, the GAO reported that the Pentagon cannot account for 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles and 80,000 pistols supposedly supplied to Iraqi security forces - adding to well-founded suspicions that insurgents are using US-supplied arms to attack American and British troops.


This discovery might be considered the mother of all known unknowns, were it not that in March this year the GAO published a drily damning report on the coalition's failure to secure scores upon scores of arms dumps abandoned by the Iraqi army after the 2003 invasion - and that by October last year it had still failed to secure this giant toolbox that keeps the daily slaughter going in Iraq.

  That carnage continues, barely moderated by the "surge" of troops that this week raised US forces to their peak level in Iraq of 162,000 - a last heave that looks destined to be the prelude to withdrawal.

  As a policy it is hard to see how any surge can fix an Iraq so traumatised by tyranny and war and then broken by invasion and occupation. It takes place as an already indecipherable ethnic and sectarian patchwork is being pulled bloodily to pieces. Iraq has reached advanced societal breakdown. Ethnic cleansing proceeds regionally, through neighbourhoods, even street by street.

  There has been a mass exodus of teachers and doctors, civil servants and entrepreneurs, a haemorrhage of Iraq's future. Nearly 4m Iraqis have been uprooted by this cataclysm. Instead of bringing democracy to Iraq and the Arabs, the 2003 invasion has scattered Iraqis across the Middle East - as well as creating laboratory conditions for the urban warfare urged on jihadis by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's strategist. The time to have surged is long since past.

  Politically, there are no institutions, there is no national narrative. Ministries are sectarian booty and factional bastions. The interior ministry, headquarters for several death squads, is, according to the Los Angeles Times, partitioned into factional fiefs on each of its 11 floors - with the seventh floor split between the armed wings of two US-allied groups.


Two ostensibly benign by-products of the US invading Iraq were: the empowerment of the Shia majority there, giving the sect, a dispossessed minority within Islam, rights denied for centuries; and the welcome panic of an ossified Sunni Arab order based on a toxic mix of despotism and social inequity that incubated extremism. But Iraq's Shia politicians seem unwilling to put state above sect. Such is the Sunni, jihadi-abetted backlash, and the intra-Shia fight over the spoils, that the Shia have not so much come into their inheritance as entered a new circle of hell.


The Shia-led government of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has ceased to pursue even a communalist agenda, preferring the narrower sectarian interest of his faction of the Da'wa party. With the withdrawal of 17 of 38 members of Mr Maliki's cabinet - including all the Sunnis and two big Shia factions - government has for most practical purposes ceased.


To believe any policy might work in these circumstances - let alone a slow-motion surge - requires heroic optimism. Some of that was placed in Gen David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq. At least until this week.


It turns out those Kalashnikovs went missing on his previous watch, as trainer-in-chief of the still barely existent Iraqi army. Gen Petraeus, a student of counterinsurgency with a PhD from Princeton and a gift for PR, had been lionised for his command of the 101st Airborne division in 2003-04, and especially his "hearts and minds" campaign in the north. After his withdrawal, however, two-thirds of Mosul's security forces defected to the insurgency and the rest went down like fairground ducks. His forces appear not to have noticed, moreover, that Saudi-inspired jihadis had established a bridgehead in Mosul before the war had even started.

  But US commanders seem to have no trouble detecting the hand of Tehran everywhere. This largely evidence-free blaming of serial setbacks on Iranian forces is a bad case of denial. First, the insurgency is overwhelmingly Iraqi and Sunni, built around a new generation of jihadis created by the US invasion. Second, to the extent foreign fighters are involved these have come mostly from US-allied and Sunni Saudi Arabia, not Shia Iran. Third, the lethal roadside bombs with shaped charges that US officials have coated with a spurious veneer of sophistication to prove Iranian provenance are mostly made by Iraqi army-trained engineers - from high explosive looted from those unsecured arms dumps.


Shia Iran has backed a lot of horses in Iraq. If it wished to bring what remains of the country down around US ears it could. It has not done so. The plain fact is that Tehran's main clients in Iraq are the same as Washington's: Mr Maliki's Da'wa and the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq led by Abdelaziz al-Hakim. Iran has bet less on the unpredictable Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army, which has, in any case, largely stood aside during the present troop surge.


So, in sum. Having upturned the Sunni order in Iraq and the Arab world, and hugely enlarged the Shia Islamist power emanating from Iran, the US finds itself dependent on Tehran-aligned forces in Baghdad, yet unable to dismantle the Sunni jihadistan it has created in central and western Iraq. Ignoring its Iraqi allies it is arming Sunni insurgents to fight al-Qaeda. And, by selling them arms rather than settling Palestine it is trying to put together an Arab Sunni alliance (Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) with Israel against Iran. All clear? How can anyone keep a straight face and call this a strategy?

C'mon guys, The Kurd massacares happend 20 years ago. THese things were not going on when we went into Iraq to "liberate" the people.
We brought the war to Iraq.
Lets try to keep it in context with a dash of reality ok.
Besides that Sadaams end of it is done and the death toll is -------- you fill in the blank I have no Idea.
However our death toll is still ongoing with no real end in sight.
I'am not sure Guro Crafty how you view my thought process as unsound.
I think its pretty simple.......Before we went into  Iraq no war there.....after we went in and ever since the country is a ongoing war zone.
Whats unsound about that?
                                                                 TG

I have no problem corupting Islam. I do however feel that radical Islam is more main stream than most care to believe.
I also think we can corrupt a religon just as easy without killing people as we can by killing people(bring in western culture and apeal to the "flesh")
However I have no problem with killing bad guys or radical mullahs or whom ever.
Thats why I think selective targeting would be more effective than flattening countries, like were doing in Iraq.
Two main problems that I have with our "strategy" One is in Iraq......I have no clue what our strategy there is. Petraoues(sp) is already planning a troop drawdown for next year......yet the "surge has just begun ......Mahliki is hanging out in Iran? I thought he was our guy?
My point is I have no idea what our strategy in Iraq is.

Second in our global war on terror.....we don't go after enough of the big fish hard enough, but we sure make a big deal about taking out low level A'Q.......The old saying cut off the head and the body dies....I think applies well here. 
Theres lots of bodys to fill in for the ones were killing now.......I think it better to get the boss/bosses
                                           TG

 GM,This may signal the time where president Mushy has to finally take a side...... and quit playing both sides. I'am in some ways kinda glad this day has come (finally)
Its really disheartning to read that all those known A'Q and Taliban go hand in hand off into the sunset....esp when you read the article it states pretty much who they are and where they ....WERE.
SO goes my knock on the our realistc approach to the global war on terror.

Just curious as to what kind of launch capablities Pakistan has on thier nuke weapons.
Last thing I heard about their nukes was they exploded a underground weapon a short time after India did......this was several years ago though.
                                       TG

Hi Doug, Sorry you don't like conversing with me. I'am beleive it or not I'am supporter of our mideast efforts more so than a negativist.
I served six years in the USN, and the military has a way of getting into your blood. More than anything Iam extremely proud of our troops and the courage they display on a daily baisis.
However, I try very hard to be a realist and I'am certainly no sheep that blindly follows.
Lets put things into perspective. If my job approval rating was 36% how long should I expect to hold my job? Congress as well holds a similar approval rating.
I think the world a better place without Sadaam Husien and his hell spawn children....Hower the thing I didn't know about which I blame or government for not being more sensitive to and prepaired for and having a better plan for was....How truly disfunctional Iraq and all its tribal factions were/are......As has proven true...getting rid of Sadaam Husien was the easy part restoring a  sense of normalcy has proven quite difficult. We should have been better prepaired for this.....I'am fairly sure this is the reason why Bush SR. did not take out Sadaam when he had a much better chance with much more rightous reason.

It truly makes my head spin from day to day trying to figure out who were fighting and who our allies are, Sunni....no Shites...no thats the Mahdi militia.....yes but the Sunnis are more closley tied to A'Q.....WOW!! Where does this end?

As for the fatigue of the war aspect....well not so much, but fatigue towards how we are fighting it.
Yes we seem to still be fighting the same way its just that we have more troops there now.
A fact plain and simple, you can't fight a war to win, by fighting a LIMITED WAR. Which is exactly what we are doing.
Ok my rant on Iraq.

I agree we didn't let Osama go by going into Iraq.......My problem there is the 6 years following 9/11 and we still haven't gotten him nor are we even operating where he is beleived to be......Thats just CRAZY Its really hard to comprehend when you think about it. The WORLDS most wanted man enjoys safe haven in a place like Pakistan. Bizzare is all I can say.

As for the heroin trade its pretty commonly known to go hand in hand with terrorists  not to mention the war on drugs Herion is a biggie don't forget
So yea we need to be minding the fields and keeping money out of terrorists hands.....I could even tolerate a herion crop in Afghanastan......If it were'nt a RECORD CROP....Remmeber we are there and as you stated so are other militarys world wide.

As for poppys being used to make morphine.....I'am fairly certain that all pharm. morphine is syntheticly made in a lab.
If that were not the case we could certainly legitimize the poppy growing, pay the farmers for their crop....even pay them a premium price and ship all the poppys to the U.S. or any legit labs to be made into legal morphine.....it would be awesome and great for the Afghan economy.......Sorry.

As for our premenante presence in Iraq.......c'mon ....its oil and making sure it gets out world wide.....remember when I said I served in the USN 6 years?  3 Of those were on a aircraft carrier...where do you think I spent the most time?
Hint: persion gulf/Gulf of Oman.....since we no longer have troops in Saudi Arabia......Iraq will be the next best place.....Hey from Iraq we can sqweeze the Saudi's and Iranians at the same time while sitting on the number 3 oil producer in the world(IRAQ)......
It would be nice if we could trust Washington to do the right things unfortunatly tooo many agendas get in the way of that.....Sucks.....
                                                    TG
Now thats a RANT

Woof Guro Crafty, By no means was I insinuating that you did support this type of reasoning.
It is just that these very types of things make me beleive that we are indeed in a "phony war" on terror.
I feel when a good hard look is made at a lot of different variables one could easily conclude that the American people are being dupped and ripped off.
Frustrating........
                                                           TG

Woof Guro Crafty, I agree, but is not the poppy crop something that we should be able to directly control?
I just posted a report the other day that claims this years crop was at a all time record high?
How does that corerelate with us being serious with the war on terror and more specificly A'Q
                                                                   TG

Woof, I was googling around trying to find out where A'Q gets its money and I came across this article. I thought it intresting, it is from the Seattle Times ......I'am guessing its just more left wing propaganda....but seems logical.
anyway.......

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003714521_alqaida20.html?syndication=rs

Iraq a "big moneymaker" for al-Qaida, says CIA
By Greg Miller

Los Angeles Times

Related

Prewar intelligence foretold Iraq upheaval
Carter flays U.S. foreign policy
 
WASHINGTON — A major CIA effort launched last year to hunt down Osama bin Laden has produced no significant leads, but has helped track an alarming increase in the movement of al-Qaida operatives and money into Pakistan's tribal territories, according to senior U.S. intelligence officials.

In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said al-Qaida's command base in Pakistan increasingly is being funded by cash from Iraq, where the terrorist network's operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.

The influx of money has bolstered al-Qaida's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of al-Qaida funds, with the leadership surviving to a large extent on money from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells.

Al-Qaida's efforts were aided, intelligence officials said, by Pakistan's withdrawal in September of tens of thousands of troops from tribal areas along the Afghanistan border where bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, are believed to be hiding.

Little more than a year ago, al-Qaida's core command was thought to be in a financial crunch. But U.S. officials said cash shipped from Iraq has eased those troubles.

"Iraq is a big moneymaker for them," a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said.

Big undercover effort

The evolving picture of al-Qaida's finances is based in part on intelligence from an aggressive effort launched last year to intensify pressure on bin Laden and his top deputies.

The CIA deployed as many as 50 clandestine operatives to Pakistan and Afghanistan — a dramatic increase over the number of case officers permanently stationed in those countries. New arrivals were given the primary objective of finding what counterterrorism officials call "HVT1" and "HVT2." Those "high value target" designations refer to bin Laden and al-Zawahri.

The CIA operation was part of a broader shake-up designed to refocus on the hunt for bin Laden, officials said. One former high-ranking agency official said the CIA had formed a task force that involved officials from all four agency directorates, including analysts, scientists and technical experts, as well as covert operators.

 
 
 
The officials were charged with reinvigorating a search that had atrophied when some intelligence assets and special-forces teams were pulled out of Afghanistan in 2002 to prepare for war with Iraq.

Nevertheless, U.S. intelligence and military officials said, not a single lead that could be substantiated has been produced on the location of bin Laden or al-Zawahri.

"We're not any closer," said a senior U.S. military official who monitors the intelligence on the hunt for bin Laden.

Despite a $25 million reward, current and former intelligence officials said, the United States has not had a lead on bin Laden since he fled U.S. and Afghan forces in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in early 2002.

"We've had no significant report of him being anywhere," said a former senior CIA official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing U.S. intelligence operations. U.S. spy agencies have not even had information that "you could validate historically," the official said, meaning a tip on a previous bin Laden location that could be verified subsequently.

President Bush is given detailed presentations on the hunt's progress every two to four months, in addition to routine counterterrorism briefings, intelligence officials said.

The presentations include "complex schematics, search patterns, what we're doing, where the Predator flies," said one participant, referring to flights by unmanned airplanes used in the search.

Still, officials said, they have been unable to answer the basic question of whether they are getting closer to their target.

"Any prediction on when we're going to get him is just ridiculous," the senior U.S. counterterrorism official said.

Pakistan's pullback

In a written response to questions from the Los Angeles Times, the CIA said it "does not as a rule discuss publicly the details of clandestine operations," but acknowledged that it had stepped up operations against bin Laden and defended their effectiveness.

"The surge has been modest in size, here and overseas, but has added new skills and fresh thinking to the fight against a resilient and adaptive foe," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in the statement. "It has paid off, generating more information about al-Qaida and helping take terrorists off the street."

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials involved in the operation said it had been hobbled by other developments. Chief among them, they said, was Pakistan's troop pullout last year from border regions where the hunt has been focused. Only months after the CIA deployed dozens of additional operatives to Pakistan, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced "peace agreements" with tribal leaders in Waziristan.

Driven by domestic political pressures and rising anti-American sentiment, the agreements called for the tribes to rein in the activities of foreign fighters, and bar them from launching attacks in Afghanistan, in exchange for a Pakistani military pullback.

But U.S. officials said there is little evidence that the tribal groups have followed through.

The pullback took significant pressure off al-Qaida leaders and the tribal groups protecting them. It also made travel easier for operatives migrating to Pakistan after taking part in the insurgency in Iraq. Some of these veterans are leading training at newly established camps, and are positioned to become the "next generation of leadership" in al-Qaida, the former senior CIA official said.

"Al-Qaida is dependent on a lot of leaders coming out of Iraq for its own viability," said the former official, who recently left the agency. "It's these sorts of guys who carry out operations."

The official added that resurgent Taliban forces in Afghanistan are "being schooled" by al-Qaida operatives with experience fighting in Iraq.

Money is flowing

Pakistan's pullback also has reopened financial channels that had been constricted by the military presence.

The senior U.S. counterterrorism official said there are "lots of indications they can move people in and out easier," and that Iraq operatives often bring cash.

"A year ago we were saying they were having serious money problems," the official said. "That seems to have eased up."

The cash is mainly U.S. currency in relatively modest sums — tens of thousands of dollars. The scale of the payments suggests the money is not meant for funding elaborate terrorist plots, but for covering al-Qaida's day-to-day costs: paying off tribal leaders, hiring security and buying provisions.

Al-Qaida in Iraq has drawn increasingly large contributions from elsewhere in the Muslim world — largely because the fight against U.S. forces has mobilized Middle East donors, officials said.

"Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is the reason people are contributing again, with money and private contributions coming back in from the gulf," the senior U.S. counterterrorism official said.

He added that al-Qaida in Iraq also has become an effective criminal enterprise.

"The insurgents have great businesses they run: stealing cars, kidnapping people, protection money," the counterterrorism official said.

The former CIA official said the activity is so extensive that the "ransom-for-profit business in Iraq reminds me of Colombia and Mexico in the 1980s and '90s."



 

Certainly no Micheal Yon Blog.....Just good old AP...... I post this because it shows the troubles we are having in Afghanastan, but not onley that.....how much more do these very things apply to Iraq for many many years to come.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070805/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_karzai
Primary Navigation
HomeU.S.BusinessWorldEntertainmentSportsTechPoliticsElectionsScienceHealthMost Popular
Secondary Navigation
Politics Video Elections White House Congress U.S. Government World Supreme Court Press Releases Search:   All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos Video/Audio  Advanced

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Karzai sees no gains in bin Laden hunt By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
25 minutes ago
 


WASHINGTON - In the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the United States and its allies have essentially gotten nowhere lately, says Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
"We are not closer, we are not further away from it," Karzai said ahead of his two-day summit with President Bush at Camp David, Md. "We are where we were a few years ago."

Karzai ruled out that bin Laden was in Afghanistan, but otherwise said he didn't know where the leader of the al-Qaida terror network was likely hiding. Karzai's comments, in an interview on CNN's "Late Edition," were taped Saturday in Kabul and broadcast Sunday.

Bin Laden, the leader of the al-Qaida network and mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, is believed to be living in the tribal border region of Pakistan. His ability to avoid capture remains a major source of frustration for U.S.-led forces.

Karzai arrived at Camp David in the late afternoon greeted by Bush and first lady Laura Bush. The president did a 360-degree spin in a golf cart for the assembled media and drove the three of them away.

The Afghan leader's visit comes as he faces competing troubles at home — civilian killings, surging opium production and steady violence.

All of those matters are expected to be discussed with Bush.

Afghanistan's fragility remains of paramount concern to the United States. Bush is expected to prod Karzai on how his government can exert — and extend — its authority.

"Karzai wants to shore up his ties in Washington," said Teresita Schaffer, a former top State Department official for south Asia. "And I think the U.S. government very much wants to get a stronger sense of how we can develop a common political strategy."

Despite its progress since U.S.-led forces toppled the militant Taliban regime in 2001, Afghanistan still is dominated by poverty and lawlessness. Stability has been hindered by the lack of government order, particularly in the southern part of the country.

"The security situation in Afghanistan over the past two years has definitely deteriorated," Karzai said in the interview. "There is no doubt about that."

Overshadowing the Bush-Karzai meeting is the fate of 21 South Korean volunteers who were abducted by the Taliban on July 19 and are now believed to be in central Afghanistan. The captors took a total of 23 people hostage and have shot and killed two of them.

The Taliban is seeking the release of prisoners; the Afghan government has refused, and the U.S. adamantly opposes conceding to such demands. The crisis has put considerable pressure on Karzai and raised more doubts about his ability to enforce the rule of law.

Bush and Karzai are also likely to discuss Afghanistan's distrustful relationship with neighboring Pakistan. Karzai said the flow of foreign fighters from Pakistan into his country is a concern he will address soon with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

The two are expected to meet this month as part of a gathering of tribal elders in Kabul.

Karzai said he is investigating reports that Iran is fueling violence in Afghanistan by sending in weaponry such as sophisticated roadside bombs. Yet he also praised Iran as a partner in peace and against narcotics. "So far, Iran has been a helper," he said.

On another front, Afghanistan now accounts for 95 percent of the world's poppy production used to make heroin and profits from the drug trafficking have helped the Taliban.

Violence has been rising sharply in Afghanistan, led by different Taliban groups with various links to tribal leaders and residual al-Qaida forces.

As U.S. and NATO forces target Taliban insurgents, the civilian deaths associated with the attacks have enraged the Afghan population and eroded Karzai's authority. He has repeatedly asked military commanders for more caution and lashed out at foreign forces aiding his nation.

Karzai is likely to seek some reassurance from Bush that "whatever the U.S. is doing is going to result in fewer civilians killed," said Schaffer, now the director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Militants often wear civilian dress and seek shelter in villagers' homes, making it hard to differentiate the enemy from the innocent. Bush "is absolutely satisfied" that the U.S. military is doing all it can avoid civilian casualties, spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

Buzzwardo, I was responding to your posted piece. Either curl up in fortress America or start telling the truth....and making it apply to all regardless of who or whom we may offend.....or expose.
Onley then will real changes be made.......My bet says it aint gonna happen.
Just trying to keep it real.....or at least start to keep it real
                                                                              TG

Whos really running the show......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan

HomeU.S.BusinessWorldEntertainmentSportsTechPoliticsElectionsScienceHealthMost Popular
Secondary Navigation
Politics Video Elections White House Congress U.S. Government World Supreme Court Press Releases Search:   All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos Video/Audio  Advanced

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Another record poppy crop in Afghanistan By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 59 minutes ago
 


WASHINGTON - Afghanistan will produce another record poppy harvest this year that cements its status as the world's near-sole supplier of the heroin source, yet a furious debate over how to reverse the trend is stalling proposals to cut the crop, U.S. officials say.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
As President Bush prepares for weekend talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, divisions within the U.S. administration and among NATO allies have delayed release of a $475 million counternarcotics program for Afghanistan, where intelligence officials see growing links between drugs and the Taliban, the officials said.

U.N. figures to be released in September are expected to show that Afghanistan's poppy production has risen up to 15 percent since 2006 and that the country now accounts for 95 percent of the world's crop, 3 percentage points more than last year, officials familiar with preliminary statistics told The Associated Press.

But counterdrug proposals by some U.S. officials have met fierce resistance, including boosting the amount of forcible poppy field destruction in provinces that grow the most, officials said. The approach also would link millions of dollars in development aid to benchmarks on eradication; arrests and prosecutions of narcotraders, corrupt officials; and on alternative crop production.

Those ideas represent what proponents call an "enhanced carrot-and-stick approach" to supplement existing anti-drug efforts. They are the focus of the new $475 million program outlined in a 995-page report, the release of which has been postponed twice and may be again delayed due to disagreements, officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because parts of the report remain classified.

Counternarcotics agents at the State Department had wanted to release a 123-page summary of the strategy last month and then again last week, but were forced to hold off because of concerns it may not be feasible, the officials said.

Now, even as Bush sees Karzai on Sunday and Monday at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Md., a tentative release date of Aug. 9, timed to follow the meetings, appears in jeopardy. Some in the administration, along with NATO allies Britain and Canada, seek revisions that could delay it until at least Aug. 13, the officials said.

The program represents a 13 percent increase over the $420 million in U.S. counternarcotics aid to Afghanistan last year. It would adopt a bold new approach to "coercive eradication" and set out criteria for local officials to receive development assistance based on their cooperation, the officials said.

Although the existing aid, supplemented mainly by Britain and Canada and supported by the NATO force in Afghanistan, has achieved some results — notably an expected rise in the number of "poppy-free" provinces from six to at least 12 and possibly 16, mainly in the north — production elsewhere has soared, they said.

"Afghanistan is providing close to 95 percent of the world's heroin," the State Department's top counternarcotics official, Tom Schweich, said at a recent conference. "That makes it almost a sole-source supplier" and presents a situation "unique in world history."

Almost all the heroin from Afghanistan makes its way to Europe; most of the heroin in the U.S. comes from Latin America.

Afghanistan last year accounted for 92 percent of global opium production, compared with 70 percent in 2000 and 52 percent a decade earlier. The higher yields in Afghanistan brought world production to a record high of 7,286 tons in 2006, 43 percent more than in 2005.

A State Department inspector general's report released Friday noted that the counternarcotics assistance is dwarfed by the estimated $38 billion "street value" of Afghanistan's poppy crop, if all is converted to heroin, and said eradication goals were "not realistic."

Schweich, an advocate of the now-stalled plan, has argued for more vigorous eradication efforts, particularly in southern Helmand province, responsible for some 80 percent of Afghanistan's poppy production. It is where, he says, growers must be punished for ignoring good-faith appeals to switch to alternative, but less lucrative, crops.

"They need to be dealt with in a more severe way," he said at the conference sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "There needs to be a coercive element, that's something we're not going to back away from or shy away from."

But, in fact, many question whether this is the right approach with Afghanistan mired in poverty and in the throes of an insurgency run by the Taliban and residual al-Qaida forces.

Along with Britain, whose troops patrol Helmand, elements in the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development, the Defense Department and White House Office of National Drug Control Policy have expressed concern, saying that more raids will drive farmers with no other income to join extremists.

There is also skepticism about the incentives in the new strategy from those who believe development assistance should not be denied to local communities because of poppy growth, officials said.

Opponents argue that the benefits of such aid, new roads and other infrastructure, schools and hospitals, will themselves be powerful tools to combat the narcotrade once constructed.

One U.S. official said the plan was a good one but might take another year or two before it can be effectively introduced

Woof Guro Crafty, Iam talking about post 975.
                                                   TG

Woof, In the spirit of keeping it real..... Since we no longer have a military presence in Saudi Arabia(to my knowledge) Which by the way was the goal of Bin Laden.
Is it not our underlying goal.....that is not told to the American people.....That we want to establish a long term military strong hold in Iraq....so that by our presence in Iraq/the mideast....we can readily impose our will whenever necassary . OR PROTECT OIL......or whatever
Why do you suppose this is not also communicated to the American people? Just keepin it real
                                                                     TG

GM, Speaking in terms of reality. Care to name a Islamofascist that we are actually fighting? Or.......are you would you just say that any Islamist that opposes us Is automaticly A Islamofascist.

Heres the short list of the definition given on who or what a Islamo is :

In my analysis, as originally put in print directly after the horror of September 11, 2001, Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama'atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Of the list above which ones are we currently and directly engaging in combat.....
For clarification purposes there wasn't so much a question of "Islamofascism" more a question of how do you identify them among the 100's of millions of Muslims.....Or do we just "kill them all and let god sort em out"

Would you say that Sadaam Husien was a Islamo?
Can an Iraqi fight Americans in his back yard simply because he dosen't want a Occupying force in his home, without being a Islamo?
Seems we did something similar here a couple of hundred plus years ago with the British.......
Anyway......Just bringing thesse things up for clarification and to keep it real.
In case you didn't pick up on this.......I'am the one that was detached from reality
Looking forward to your response to my post.
                                                                     TG

Doug Mac, The onley thing I'am saying is he had no WMD, and that was the big selling point on the war.
I still believe Bush had a specific hard on for Sadaam Husien, because of his dad(Bush's)and all the bad blood there. Thats just a personal opinon.
I think we could have picked other ,better places to go after terrorists, rather than Iraq.Do you agree or not?
I in fact now beleive there are more terrorists in Iraq now than there was before we invaded it.......and I don't beleive that they were all terrorists before we invaded Iraq. In other words I beleive weve created some.
Here is why I think I'am right,  The original object was to take out Sadaam and est.a free and democratic Gov. that would be a model for the mideast. I was hopeful for this.
Now my hope is that we don't bail out and leave the country in someones hands who ends up being worse than Sadaam or that Iran ends up with a puppet as leader of Iraq like Sadr.
I see no real progress being made in the war......in fact weve escalated troop involvement. Cite progress in the last 5 years if you dispute this.....I mean something with substance.
All that needs to happen for Iraq to crumble is for time to pass.....Remember we have an election comming up and most likely the American people will vote in someone who will pull out the troops....which will be a shame....because we broke Iraq, its our responsbility to fix it.....but I certainly don't know how that happens....Do you?
Which brings me to my final point.....even if we get reletive peace in Iraq, I feel it onley holds as long as we hold it there...and thats a big If....and how long are you willing to send our kids over there to die for a country that really dosen't want to change.
Afghanastan is the same way....if we ever leave it...the Taliban is right back in there
Strictly , this post is just my opinon.
                                                                           TG
If you disagree......tell me in your opinon how we fix Iraq so that we can get out.

Woof Guro Crafty, I was wondering how long, or what I would have to do to provoke a honest response.
You are alright with Iran getting nukes? Seems not that long ago you were against this? As for me, I don't think there is any stopping it.
It is fine that they will help us against sunni AQ.....But the reason I keep brinigng up Sadr is because I know he has close Iranian ties....and if they go for the whole  of Iraq?
As for the American resolve, I guess I fit into that category, simply because in Iraq specificly other than an election of "limpness" the American people can see no real improvement there....and in fact what they have to look at is an escalation of troops, that are already very battle weary.
One would think, that after what 5 years? There would be something better to offer the American people by way of hope other than escalation in troops.
I think the American people have the right to grumble.......I understand patience and the idea these things take time, and I also think the American people understand this as well.....but they as do I need some positives along the way.......Oh yea the Iraqi gov. took the month off ......(sarcasm)
If one were to look at Afghanastan (be glad most people don't) theres not a very bright picture there either......
                                                                                   TG
One thing that most likely will be a detriment to our mideast efforts will undoubtably be the next presidential elections. In other words, I feel time is running out.

If you read my posts you will see that I supported the removal of Sadamm from power. I served in the USN from 1979-1986. I also have grown up with a bad taste for SH so I bought the hype like most. I understand he was a bad guy....trust me I understand.
Since the intial invasion of Iraq there has just been one cluster "F" after another we tried to play the politcal nice guy and fight a war at the same time.
Now we are reduced to negotiating with our enemy over the very country we invaded.....are you telling me this will be a victory?
I do like the fact that you said a free and functional Iraq WAS the hope anyway.....
So we are now admitting thats a slim possibility. What becomes of Iran and their Nuke program........I bet the farm the go nuke with out interuption......
Crafty says there are many other areas of mutual intrest.......I haven't see any of yet that would benifit the U.S. or make Iraq any better off than it was before we removed SH......
Please tell me how negotiating with Iran over Iraq is good for us and Iraq........
I'am all ears.
I'am not by the way trying to be an ASS.....just hoping that eventually we start smelling the Roses....
I also thiink we need to fix Iraq since we broke it......though I don't know how thats done.
                                             TG