Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Rumfeld's Fingerprints All Over Bush's Forgotten Quagmire

A civil war in Iraq overshadows yet another Bush failure: Afghanistan where the Taliban is reorganized and resurgent. The task of containing the "resurgency" has fallen to a force of some eleven thousand American servicemen who cannot be expected to prevent the Taliban from regaining power. Like the much bigger force in Iraq, American troop strength is completely inadequate for the job –a situation that has Rumsfeld’s finger prints all over it.

Bush, of course, paints a rosy picture of the situation in Afghanistan, calling his attack on that country an “…unqualified success.” But that’s not the picture that emerges from a recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations:
Council Special Report No. 12

Afghanistan’s Uncertain Transition
argues that Afghanistan is still far from stability. While the country has reestablished basic institutions of government, it has barely started to make them work. The government and its international supporters are challenged by a terrorist insurgency that has become more lethal and effective and that has bases in Pakistan, a drug trade that dominates the economy and corrupts the state, and pervasive poverty and insecurity.
Bush will have made terrorism worse. Nations that harbor terrorists, Bush told us, would be treated like the terrorists themselves. The question no one bothered to ask was simply this: just who are the terrorists and which nations harbor them? Any recent history of Saudi Arabia is highly suspicious and full of Bush family cronies —but instead of following those leads, the Bush administration worked to cover up its own connections with the Saudi royal family. Prominent Saudi royals were ushered out of the U.S. surreptitiously; the public, the media, the world was distracted by smoke and shattered glass if not smoke and mirrors. No one in the Bush administration has ever come forward with an innocent explanation. Anyone daring to question the official conspiracy theory is a traitor by Bush's convenient definition.

Since that time, numerous stories have surfaced about how Bush had planned to attack Iraq immediately but was dissuaded by Colin Powell. Afghanistan was offered up because it was said that the Taliban was harboring Osama Bin Laden –although no hard evidence against Bin Laden has surfaced since 1998.

The mentality in the White House seemed to be never let a good pretext to war go to waste. Whose ass got kicked seemed almost beside the point! An angry American populace wanted revenge, quick results, and easy victories. Bush was just the man to supply revenge but not results. And victories are yet to be attained at all.

Enough history. Fast forward to the dismal present, a time in which Bush has failed to subdue the civilian population against whom he has waged aggressive war upon a pack of lies –none of them having anything to do with righting the wrongs of 911. An increasing number of conservatives now denounce the bone headed decision to wage war on Iraq. As a quagmire, it surpasses Viet Nam. And unlike Viet Nam where blame could be equally dispersed among GOP and Democratic regimes alike, Iraq is a tar baby that is stuck to Bush’s foot and bush’s foot alone. Bush broke Iraq and since the attack his every action has made the quagmire worse.

Bush had promised a “Marshall Plan” to rebuild Afghanistan, the tiny country where he had hoped to grab an easy victory on the cheap. The defeat of the Taliban may have been cheap but the price of victory seems beyond the ability of the United States to obtain. $3 billion has been appropriated but this hardly amounts to a “Marshall Plan”. Of that amount, some $2.3 billion is sucked up by security and military items. What's left is earmarked for public relations, i.e. making Bush look good in an election year. In simpler times that might have fooled a nation of “poltroonish goosesteppers” –as H.L Mencken called his fellow Americans.

It doesn't matter than Karzai is a photogenic puppet. He has been called derisively the mayor of Kabul as war lords, bandits and drug dealers operate with impunity outside the city limits.

Nor can Bushies cite a draft constitution as evidence of success. A proposed charter fashioned under the guidance of the United States, is hardly a result that can be pointed to as evidence of “victory”. Rather, it celebrates religious intolerance and affirms Sunni supremacy even as Bush seems to be presiding over the rise of Shias in Iraq. Afghanistan, like Iraq, is most certainly worse off since the U.S. Attacked and invaded.

The Bush administration has learned nothing from the experience. Bush’s ham-fisted, NeoCon approach ignored common sense. At last, the NeoCon approach ignored J.S. Mill's admonition that tyranny by a majority is still tyranny. What has been said of the French Bourbons can be said of Bush: that his regime forgot nothing and learned nothing.

For an update, click the pic:

Gunmen attack US-funded Afghan firm

KABUL (Reuters) - Taliban guerrillas have attacked a U.S.-funded Afghan construction company, killing an Afghan guard and wounding two, the director of the company said on Sunday.

Police said that in a separate incident Taliban gunmen killed a senior government official in Ghazni province to the southwest of the capital, Kabul, on Sunday.

The attack on the construction company happened on Saturday night in Shah Wali Kot district of Kandahar province, where four Canadian soldiers had been killed by a roadside bomb earlier in the day.

The firm targeted, Tawazo Construction Company, is building a road linking the southern province of Kandahar with neighboring Uruzgan province -- a U.S. government-funded project.

"The Taliban opened fire at the company's guards, killing one and wounding two others before setting ablaze 14 vehicles and fleeing," company director Mohammad Yousuf told Reuters.

Southern Afghanistan has seen rising violence since the Taliban announced last month they had launched a spring offensive.

Ousted from power by U.S. and Afghan opposition forces in late 2001, the Taliban have declared a war on President Hamid Karzai's Western-backed government, foreign troops in the country, and anyone supporting it, including aid workers. ...

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

17 comments:

Sebastien Parmentier said...

"There are towns
Not to besiege.
There are terrains
Not to contest.
There are ruler's orders
Not to obey."

Sun-Tzu, "The Art of War"

Jaye Ramsey Sutter said...

The irony of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan is Bush's insistance that we wouldn't be nation-building during the presidential debates. He had said even earlier, when he was governor, that we should finish the job in Iraq.

So he was lying before he even had the job.

It just gets more Orwellian every day.

Sebastien Parmentier said...

With a record $5 billion worth of heroin exports, Afghanistan poppy growers must have been covered in dust for a minute after having rolled on the floor while holding their stomacs in extreme tremors of hillarity when they've heard Bush talking about a "Marshall Plan" for their country...

Anonymous said...

Speaking of drugs...more fun from Daniel Hopsicker reporting on CIA drug flights:

A plane was recently detained in Mexico carrying 5.5 tons of cocaine. Brent C Kovac is one of the two owners. And he just happens to have been appointed by Tom Delay in 1993 to the Business Advisory Council of the NRCC.

The plane's registered owner, a Florida air charter company called Royal Sons, was run from a hanger at the Venice Fl. Airport owned by flight school Huffman Aviation of 9/11 fame. The plane carried an official looking insignia US govt insignia. According to Hopsicker, Royal Sons is part of a cluster of related air charter firms that are dummy CIA companies. When Mexican authorities surrounded the plane the pilot "escaped".

Hopsicker recalls: "...Huffman Aviation's owner Wally Hilliard had his own Lear jet busted by DEA agents, during the same month Mohamed Atta arrived at his flight school, unhappy to discover 43 pounds of heroin aboard."

He concludes: "...the sleepy retirement community of blue-haired widows [Venice Fl] is about to replace Palermo or Caracas as the place to see and be seen in the international narcotics trade."

I just love it when you get Tom Delay, 5.5 tons of cocaine and 9/11 in the one hit!

(link)(link)

Anonymous said...

that was me...

Unknown said...

jaye, Bush, indeed, made those remarks with regard to "nation building". Perhaps, he just meant that he would engage in the destruction of nations and let the wretched survivors sort it all out.

Indeed, Bush created a situation in which the poppy will remain the national flower.

re: damien: "I just love it when you get Tom Delay, 5.5 tons of cocaine and 9/11 in the one hit!"

This modus operandi dates back to Iran/Contra if not earlier. Cocaine may very well be the CIA currency of choice as well as unregulated sideline with which to finance various and nefarious subversive schemes. Connecting the dots must include Bush Sr's involvement in the CIA long before he was officially appointed director of the CIA. What's known about the Bush crime family is sure to be but the tip of an ice burg.

Vigilante said...

In the first place, congratulations on a great site. I have not taken time to peruse earlier articles, but I will.

In the second place, I'll take exception to this statement.

Afghanistan was offered up because it was said that the Taliban was harboring Osama Bin Laden –although no hard evidence against Bin Laden has surfaced since 1998.

The mentality in the White House seemed to be never let a good pretext to war go to waste. Whose ass got kicked seemed almost beside the point! An angry American populace wanted revenge, quick results, and easy victories.


In an effort to be brief: The American retaliation against 'Talibinistan' was totally (a) justified (b) expected. The retro government in Kabul was given the option of giving up OBL and weren't responsive.

The real point to be made is that Afghanistan offered poor targets; Bush's vanity could not be satisfied with such an 'easy victory'. His need for a 'vanity war' was what was behind this ruinous un-provoked, unnecessary, unplanned and largely unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq (UUULUIOI)!

Words cannot describe the sum total of what Bush has squandered.

He is the Worst President in American History (WPAH).

Again, GR8 Site!

Unknown said...

Thanks for the kind words and encouragment. Your comments are always welcome.

The response may have been "justified" if one accepts official theories whole cloth. But the fact of the matter is Afghanistan was not Bush's first choice —even if it were true that the Taliban was harboring OBL. Against common sense, Bush's target was ALWAYS Iraq.

Powell —according to numerous credible and main stream sources —pointed out to Bush that that Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq. The rejoinder (from Rumsfeld, as I recall) was that the better targets were in Iraq. Drunks, after all, look for their lost keys under street lights where the light is better.

Subsequently, we have learned from the Downing Street memos et al, that even though the better targets were in Iraq it was known in the Bushy camp even then that Saddam had nothing whatever to do with 911.

But —like the drunk who searches for his lost keys —Bush stumbled into both Afghanistan and Iraq. And the elusive "keys" are still missing. The Tabliban were SAID to be harboring Bin Laden in one instance and Saddam was SAID to have WMD in the other.

I no longer believe either cover story.

Various major British newspapers carried the story that that in July preceding 911, two CIA guys visited Bin Laden in a hospital in Dubai. Bin Lade was under international arrest warrantat the time.

Why wasn't he arrested? Was he more useful if allowed to recover and live?

911 could have been prevented IF preventing terrorism had been Bush's goal. Clearly —Bush has benefited from terrorism and fear mongering but appears to have reached a point of diminishing returns.

Bush's case for war in Afghanistan is just as bogus as his case for war against Iraq; it's just not as widely publicized.

Vierotchka said...

Vigilante - you stated "In an effort to be brief: The American retaliation against 'Talibinistan' was totally (a) justified (b) expected. The retro government in Kabul was given the option of giving up OBL and weren't responsive.". That is just not so - the Taliban made repeated efforts to offer up Osama bin Laden, but stated that they could only release him to a neutral Muslim country, which is perfectly acceptable and understandable if one knows anything about Islam and about Afghanistan. But Bush contemptuously refused their offers. See How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It, Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over, Dreamers and Idiots, among others.

Unknown said...

EXCELLENT RESOURCES, rurikid!

Dare I believe that Bush —arguably among the worst war criminals since Adolph Hitler —will one day be exposed, will one day pay for his crimes against humanity?

Again, thanks for the links. The search for fact and truth are consistent with a moral absolute: behave in such a way that one is true can be verified to be so.

Clearly —Bush has never come close to that standard and his entire, wasted, failed life will forever be the very anti-thesis of any concept of morality. His culture of lies and deception, if made a universal standard as GOP politics would most certainly do, is a straight road to chaos, ruin and perdition.

The only way to defeat evil is with truth.

Unknown said...

rurikid, I forgot to add:

Isn't it interesting that Bush refused the Taliban offer to turn Bin Laden over because they dared to demand —not proof — but JUST evidence that Bin Laden was, in any way, guilty of having anything to do with 911?

Vigilante said...

Again, I reiterate my strongest conviction that it was de rigor for the USA to go into Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda, Osama, and - for good measure - the Taliban. The whole world expected nothing less, discounting some Muslim leaders of course. There was near-unanimous world opinion in America's behalf. When attacked brutally, the best response of any Nation-State is to retaliate brutally and allow issues of proportionality to be secondary.

I think I will get to know and respect Rurikid, but when he says

the Taliban made repeated efforts to offer up Osama bin Laden, but stated that they could only release him to a neutral Muslim country,..

I have to think I would like to play a few rounds of poker with Rurikid, if he's susceptible to transparent dodges like that. Come to think of it, I'd like Len to be sitting at the table, too because he too, put credence in:

Taliban offer to turn Bin Laden over because they dared to demand —not proof — but JUST evidence that Bin Laden was, in any way, guilty of having anything to do with 911?

On 9-12-01, this was not a case for the world equivalent of the ACLU. This was Pearl Harbor II, just what the Neocons had been praying for. Massive and effective retaliation was called for.

If Gore had been president, I am convinced it would have been effective; with Bush serving as the WPAH, it was ineffective and precursory, for the reasons both Len and Rurikid have stated.

I am adamant that the best Progressive position is to fight the tendency of grouping Afghanistan with Iraq wherever it is encountered. You will notice that Bush-Cheney attempt to bundle them every chance they can.

I respect all participants in this thread as thoughtful observers, but I cannot collude in any obfuscation on this issue.

Anonymous said...

DUH ! Boy am I gettin a little peeved off with the constant repeat of Bush fluffing it in Iraq.

WTH is it with you people, three years on and skintillions of information available to paint the picture for you.

CIVILWAR IN IRAQ WAS THE OBJECTIVE OF BUSH AND HIS COMPATRIOTS, as is the break up of Iraq into smaller autonomous states thus making easier the control of same by the Neocons.

This is EXACTLY what is happening right now in Iraq.

In fact it would be more TRUTHFULL to say, BUSH has been ADMIRABLY SUCCESSFUL in Iraq, acheiving his goal, this being his ONLY success.

Afghanistan ??????? Who cares, there's no oil there, and the pipeline through Afghanistan is being built, so again, objective reached. The rest is totaly irrelevant.

Unknown said...

Of course, Bush —and the crime family from which he sprouts —defines "success" differently from the rest of us. But that's no reason I should buy into it. I don't buy any of his definitions, slogans, and psychotic bluster. Sure —Bush and his NeoCon gangster buddies and their various corpo-fascist sponsors have looted Iraq under the cover of chaos. Hitler, likewise, WANTED to kill off the jews! But, while Bush can simply define "terrorist" to justify murder, he cannot simply declare success in Iraq. It's an utter failure by any SANE definition and Bush is a war criminal. He's also prosecutable for violations of U.S. Codes; section 2441 —a capital crime!

Jennie said...

Man, whenever people discuss retaliation after 9/11, I think how terribly disappointed many people subconsciously felt after the Oklahoma City bombing that international terrorists were NOT responsible. Whether it be mass homicide/suicide like at Columbine High School, Oklahoma City, or 9/11, collectively people want to see justice served. And when it doesn't happen, they are upset.

I think after Oklahoma City, when people suspected international terrorists, they were ready to declare war and fight. When we found out it was an inside job, by some militant Americans, and that they would go through the US judicial system, well that's disappointing.

Regardless of who was president when 9/11 happened, if war was not declared in some way shape or form, that president would catch so much flack. In my gut, after 9/11, I kind of hoped that they could find the accomplices of these terrible acts, and put them on trial and punish them accordingly. It would have been proper, clean, and would have left many innocent people in this world to lead their lives without the ruinous torture of war.

But no, this happened during the reign of Pres. Geo. W. Bush, as it likely was planned. 9/11, IMO, would not have happened under any other president. Too many wheels went into motion the moment Bush was declared president in 2000, that would not have even turned if Gore were president. And we are enduring the consequences.

Justice in the eyes of the victims of 9/11 will likely never be served, as the primary perpetrators are dead. The co-conspirators that remain, are enjoying the splendors of their hunt. Thousands upon thousands are suffering daily because of what could be called US vengeance. For those who place their faith in God, at least they have solace that "vengeance is mine, says the Lord."

Unknown said...

It hard to go wrong with Bush when it is realized that he is a liar and that NONE of the stated reasons for war in either Afghanistan or Iraq are true.

Both are about oil ...pure and simple. In the case of Afghanistan, it was a pipeline across Afghanistan. UNOCAL and Exxon-Mobil officials had met with the Taliban in Sugar Land, TX in the late nineties. Source: UNOCAL's own web site. The negotiations broke down. Later, in July of 2001, the State Department threatened members of the Taliban with carpet bombs if they they didn't come to terms on the issue of the pipeline. Apparently, they didn't.

The war on Afghanistan had nothing to do with Bin Laden.

I recommend: Forbidden Truth by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie.

Unknown said...

Jen, as I recall, the number of people killed by terrorists over the last 20 to 30 years is incredibly small. Compared with run o' the mill murders (in Texas especially), traffic accidents, natural disasters like Hurricanes and Tsunamis, terrorism is small potatoes. I would wager that your chances of being murdered in Houston is much greater than the chance of your being killed by a suicide bomber EVEN if you lived in the middle east.l

In America the biggest beneficiaries of terrorism have been incumbent regimes, primarily Reagan, Bush Sr. and now Bush Jr.

Waging "War" on nations said to be supporting or nurturing "terrorists" is stupid and counterproductive —unless it is the purpose of demagogues (Bush and Reagan) to exploit terrorism for political purposes. The technique was used but not even pioneered by Hitler. James I of England used it following the gun powder plot. Guy Fawkes was executed for high treason but not until James I denounced the act of terrorism, declaring "We dinna need the Papists now!" In fact, the gun powder that was found in the Houses of Parliament was traced to the governments OWN stores of armaments. Inside job? Perhaps, Fawkes' alleged attempt to blow up Parliament came at a time of great disillusionment with the reign of James I, Elizabeth's successor.

Ronald Reagan, like Bush now, waged a great "war on terrorism". "You can run but you can't hide" he boasted. But after two years there was absolutely nothing to show for this great GOP war! Nothing! When the Marine Barracks in Lebanon was blown up, Reagan simply withdrew the Marines. In fact, FBI Stats compiled and published by the Brookings Institute prove conclusively that over the two years that Reagan waged his great war, terrorism increased very nearly exponentially.

More recently, Bush sr's attack on Saddam Hussein following the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait came a time when Senior's approval ratings were probably even lower than Junior's are now. A google look up will most certainly confirm that.

Like Junior now, Bush Sr lied about his war against Iraq. Bush told the world that Hussein had developed a NUKE.

Where are those nukes? Where are those WMD? Where is a single truth told by ANY Bush at any time about anything?

The Reagan/Bush/Bush wars on terrorism were all fraudulent, premised upon demonstrable lies and bullshit.