Target Centermass

Category: War on Terror

  • Carter Says Bush Exploited 9/11

    Jimmy Carter, former president and lily-livered commander-in-chief, is trying to exploit the 9/11 attacks by accusing President Bush of exploiting the 9/11 attacks.

    President Bush has exploited the Sept. 11 attacks for political gain, former president Jimmy Carter said in an interview published on Monday.

    Asked in an interview with Britain’s Guardian newspaper why U.S. polls were split over the war in Iraq, the former Democrat president said:

    “I think the basic reason is that our country suffered, in 9/11, a terrible and shocking attack … and George Bush has been adroit at exploiting that attack and he has elevated himself, in the consciousness of many Americans, to a heroic commander-in-chief, fighting a global threat against America.”

    “He’s repeatedly played that card, and to some degree quite successfully. I think that success has dissipated,” he added.

    “I don’t know if it’s dissipating fast enough to affect the election.”

    Is Carter jealous because he was never and could never reasonably be considered a heroic commander-in-chief? I think not, as I don’t think Carter believes that war can produce real heroes. That is the domain of propping up new housing and despots. For Carter, there is never a conflict so pressing that the U.S. cannot avoid if it only offered up the right acquiescence.

    Carter is so weak on defense that the idea of Bush rallying America to fight for its security disgusts him. Imagery of Bush after 9/11, albeit Bush’s finest hour and of great import to our nation’s morale at the time, are only exploitation to Carter, as were the battle cries of “Remember the Alamo” and “Remember Pearl Harbor.” Because of this, Carter feels fully justified in exploiting the supposed taboo of 9/11 to attack Bush immediately prior to the election.

    Carter cannot exit the international stage fast enough.

  • British Lobbied to Send Troops to Danger Zone

    The Brits have recently agreed to move 850 members of the Black Watch to an area near Baghdad, freeing up U.S. forces to apply further pressure on Fallujah. The question now is did they acquiesce to an American request or were they itching for the opportunity.

    The decision to send Black Watch troops into Iraq’s “triangle of death” followed requests by British military chiefs to take over a US- controlled area.

    British officers have been “champing at the bit” for months to be allowed the chance to demonstrate what they believed are superior skills in restoring order, according to a senior military source.

    Some officers believe that American ‘heavy-handedness’ in Iraq is prolonging the conflict. The revelation casts new light on the decision to send 850 British troops to boost American forces. The official position remains that Washington asked for support. It led to accusations that Britain was boosting President George W Bush’s election ambitions by supporting the campaign.

    However, the request came only after British officers made it clear to their American counterparts that they would be receptive to an approach. Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, has not revealed the extent of the British Army’s enthusiasm for the mission for fear of appearing critical of America.

    General Sir Mike Jackson, chief of the general staff, is among senior British officers who have praised British successes in southern Iraq and regretted that the forces had not taken over an area in or around Baghdad at the start of the war.

    Jackson has come closest to disapproving of some American tactics, saying that US military culture “differed significantly” from Britain’s. During the 2003 Iraq conflict he said: “We have a very considerable hearts and minds challenge.”

    As part of their hearts-and-minds approach, the Brits are considering a soft hat to go with the needed iron gauntlet.

    The Black Watch soldiers being sent to Iskandariyah, near Baghdad, may patrol wearing berets instead of the helmets used by the US marines they will replace.

    British officers say the use of berets has helped their troops to win the confidence of locals in south-east Iraq.

    A final decision on the issue will not be made until the 850 members of the 1st Bn Black Watch have taken up position over the next few days.

    “They’ll have to make a judgment when they’re up there,” said Sqd Ldr Steve Dharamraj, a British military spokesman. British troops in Basra were patrolling in soft hats, but had hard hats at the ready in case of trouble.

    “If you’re on the streets and looking more human, it must be a good thing,” he said. “We don’t patrol in sunglasses. There’s lots of eye contact.”

    All noble and peaceful, those Brits. Hey, don’t get me wrong; I have nothing but respect for the gallantry and abilities of the British troops. I just want to point out that they aren’t the only ones employing a balance of force with peaceful dexterity.

    When U.S. civilian authorities were rooting out Saddam Hussein (news – web sites) loyalists, Col. Dana J.H. Pittard recruited 41 of them as advisers and encouraged them to stay in contact with the very insurgents who were fighting his men.

    Discovering that a respected Muslim cleric had been in prison for 10 months, Pittard and a small contingent helicoptered 300 miles to the lockup in full battle gear, and confronted military police guards, demanding that they free him. “We made it very clear we wouldn’t leave without him,” Pittard said. Otherwise, he added jokingly: “I think we would have kidnapped him.”

    Pittard, commander of an American infantry brigade in the once insurgency-rife province of Diyala, is outspoken and his tactics don’t always follow the textbook. But he believes they have produced a “recipe for success” at Baghdad’s vital northern gateway.

    It includes everything from driving wedges between rebel factions to forbidding his troops to be rude to Arabs.

    A Harvard-educated military aide to former President Clinton (news – web sites), the colonel from El Paso, Texas, also believes that contrary to what some military analysts think, a conventional U.S. Army unit with the right training, tactics and mind-set can defeat the rebellion.

    ….

    Pittard, 45, believes it’s important to project toughness. “The fact that we allowed ourselves to pull out of Fallujah was a mistake,” he says, referring to the insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad. To prevent any such backsliding in his territory, Pittard has troops continuously stationed inside Baqouba, the provincial capital some 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

    “We don’t allow even the slightest sign of open resistance,” he said.

    When the Diyala Province town of Buhritz flared up over the summer, Pittard threatened to destroy it and a sizable U.S.-Iraqi force went in to kill or wound some 50 insurgents. But at the same critical moment, as leaflets circulated demanding U.S. troops stay out, Pittard drove into the center of town, held a news conference for Iraqi media and asked: “What do you need in Buhritz?”

    “We realize we can kill the enemy till kingdom come and still not be successful,” Pittard says. “You need a full-spectrum, balanced approach… the right balance between lethal and non-lethal action.”

    Have Col. Pittard’s efforts been effective? Though continued success is not ensured, I’ll let this stand for Pittard’s success to date:

    Roadside and car bombings, while still a serious threat to his 6,000 soldiers, fell 60 percent from their June peak while direct attacks plummeted by 85 percent, according to the military. As mortar and rocket strikes on Camp Warhorse, headquarters of Pittard’s 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, have subsided, body armor no longer has to be worn at all times and outdoor volleyball and basketball courts have come into use.

  • Terrorist Associate Seized in Iraq

    The noose is slowly tightening around the neck of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as the U.S. keeps up the pressure around Fallujah and nabs an al-Zarqawi associate.

    A newly promoted associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was arrested in Iraq on Saturday, the U.S. military reported, while elsewhere, two suicide car bombings and a drive-by shooting killed at least 14 people in separate incidents.

    The al-Zarqawi associate was seized early Saturday along with five other terrorists in southern Falluja, the insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad, the military said.

    Their identities were not disclosed.

    Initially, the al-Zarqawi associate was thought to be a minor member of the terrorist’s circle, however “due to a surge in the number of al-Zarqawi associates who have been captured or killed by [multinational forces] strikes and other operations, the member had moved up to take a critical position as an al-Zarqawi senior leader,” the U.S. military said.

    Falluja has been the site of intensified U.S. attacks in recent weeks, with American forces stepping up their efforts against al-Zarqawi and his Unification and Jihad group, which has staged attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi police and civilians.

    The U.S. State Department is offering $25 million for the capture or death of al-Zarqawi, blamed for the recent series of beheadings and who last week swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

    In another development, al-Zarqawi’s followers have dispersed to Falluja’s outlying areas, where they are attempting to hide among the civilian population, according to a U.S. military news release.

    I’m wagering that al-Zarqawi ain’t sleeping too well at nights. His only hope may be a group of Sunni clerics who are threatening a boycott of the January elections if the coalition attacks Fallujah. It is my opinion that the pacification of Fallujah and the nullification of the terrorist al-Zarqawi is more pressing for the success of the elections than the threat of a partial Sunni boycott. After all, the Sunni clerics run the risk of taking a hit on their own credibility if their boycott is not a major impairment to Iraqi voting.

  • French Islamic Radical Killed in Iraq

    The problem with the growing numbers and militancy of the Islamic radicals in France and other European countries bodes ill news for the future peace of a continent barely willing to face its danger. Now, there is cold, dead evidence that the pending Euro problem has decided to export itself elsewhere.

    French officials have identified a French national killed in fighting against U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

    The 19-year-old man, identified only by his first name, Redoune, is believed to have died in July during a U.S. bombardment of Fallujah, an insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad.

    The Paris newspaper Le Figaro says the identification of the man, believed to be of Tunisian origin, provides the first evidence that Islamic radicals from France are participating in the insurgency in Iraq.

    This is truly a world war. Unfortunately, large parts of the world would rather pretend that it’s not.

  • Kerry: the Ultimate Monday Morning Quarterback

    If John Kerry had been president after 9/11, the U.S. would’ve already had Osama bin Laden behind bars or in a body bag. Just ask him.

    Kerry accused President Bush of allowing bin Laden to escape by relying on Afghan warlords to try to hunt the al-Qaida chief down in the caves of Tora Bora in December 2001.

    “Can you imagine trusting them when you have your 10th Mountain Division, the United States Marine Corps, when you had all the power and ability of the best-trained military in the world?” Kerry told a rally at the University of Nevada-Reno. “I would have used our military and we would have gone after and captured or killed Osama bin Laden. That’s tough.”

    Yes, that is truly a tough stance. It is so easy to picture the glory-clad senator, standing on that tall hill and framed by a magnificent sunrise in America, strongly guiding our fine country with his perfect hindsight.

    Of course, there’s no reason to believe there’s any truth to his assurance of a success that could’ve been. In fact, there’s every reason to scoff.

    Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt said the Democrat’s claim was “another exaggeration of John Kerry, saying anything no matter how untrue it is.”

    “During the time of when the United States was engaged in offensive operations in Tora Bora, John Kerry praised that strategy and tactics,” Schmidt said.

    Also, the Kerry’s accusation of Bush’s failure stands contrary to not only his own words at the time, but also to the current stance of the U.S. commander during the action in question.

    “As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora and I can tell you that the senator’s understanding of events doesn’t square with reality,” retired general Tommy Franks wrote in The New York Times.

    Kerry has repeatedly accused US President George W. Bush of surrendering the job of hunting for bin Laden to allied Afghan tribal leaders, who were unable to find the Al-Qaeda leader in the caves of the mountainous Tora Bora region in late 2001.

    Franks said he did not know to this day whether bin Laden was in Tora Bora in December 2001 to begin with.

    “Some intelligence sources said he was,” he wrote. “Others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time. Still others suggested he was in Kashmir.”

    According to Franks, the US military relied heavily on Afghan forces in that battle because they knew Tora Bora after fighting there for years against the Soviet occupation.

    “Third, the Afghans weren’t left to do the job alone,” the retired general continued. “Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes.”

    Franks, a declared Bush supporter, said the president had “his eye on that ball” in conducting the “war on terror” while Senator Kerry did not.

    This is not leadership on Kerry’s part. Rather, this is some couch potato watching his team on Sunday giving up a shutout on the last play of the game, only managing a 42-7 victory. Said potato cheers at the time, then bitches the next day that, had he only been coach, that last touchdown would’ve certainly been prevented by a sack. This would be GOP candidate Thomas Dewey in 1944 promising that, were he president instead of FDR, the Americans would’ve handled Kasserine Pass differently and better, brashly claiming on the campaign trail that he would have secured victory in the action and the disastrous battle was Roosevelt’s fault. Dewey didn’t do that, because it would have been a disgusting tactic in a wartime election. Then again, Kerry has never been one to be overly concerned with using disgusting tactics in his choice of words while American troops were still in the field.

  • Senator Says Pentagon Office Massaged Iraq Data

    Creating an opportunity for political gain was apparently too tempting to resist, even if it has the potential side effect of undermining our troops on the ground.

    A Democratic U.S. Senator on Thursday accused a senior Pentagon official of distorting intelligence information to back claims of links between Iraq and al Qaeda in the run-up to last year’s U.S.-led invasion.

    A report issued by Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, also questioned assertions of pre-war links between Baghdad and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who since the invasion has emerged as a leader in the anti-U.S. insurgency.

    The report, compiled by the committee’s Democratic staff, criticized the Office of Special Plans, which operated under the auspices of Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy.

    It was released less than two weeks before the U.S. presidential election, in which President Bush’s handling of Iraq is a major issue.

    The report said Feith’s office looked at evidence “through a different lens, one that was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.”

    Democrats have frequently accused Feith and other hawks in the Bush administration of manipulating data supplied by the CIA and other sources to bolster the case for invading Iraq.

    The 46-page report argued that Pentagon assertions of a link between al Qaeda and Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein were not supported by intelligence reports on which they were purportedly based.

    Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican, said it was too early to draw conclusions on these issues because the Senate Intelligence Committee was looking into these issues and its work was not complete.

    Levin said he released the report shortly before the presidential election because Congress was working on drafting an intelligence reform bill.

    Hmmm, let’s see. Two weeks before the election. A report compiled by Democratic committee staffers without the review of their GOP counterparts. Not political, my ass! The timing stinks all to Hell for the election and for the public support of our troops’ efforts in Iraq.

  • Taliban Riven by Dissent

    Those pesky Taliban types, driven from their brutal reign, are now at odds with each other over their inability to hamper the recent Afghan elections.

    Fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar has had a serious falling-out with some of his lieutenants, who blame him for the rebels’ failure to launch a major assault during landmark Afghan presidential elections, the US military said today.

    The October 9 poll was largely peaceful, and US military spokesman Major Scott Nelson claimed that intelligence reports from Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan showed this had demoralised the Taliban militia.

    “There’s been serious disagreements between Mullah Omar and some of his lower commanders on the strategy for the follow-up after the election,” Major Nelson said. “There’s a lot of frustration with his lack of effectiveness in disrupting the election.”

    Omar, whose hardline Islamic regime harboured Osama bin Laden, has been at large since US-led forces ousted the Taliban regime in late 2001. The rebels have repeatedly mounted attacks in the past year on government and coalition targets.

    Major Nelson said he still saw “indications the man (Omar) is involved in planning Taliban operations” in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, but conceded the military didn’t know in which of the two countries the one-eyed rebel leader was hiding.

    The US military, which has 18,000 forces hunting al-Qaeda and Taliban holdouts in Afghanistan, has hailed the election as a body blow to the rebels because their threats to sabotage it failed to come true.

    An estimated 8 million Afghans turned out to vote, and US-backed interim leader Hamid Karzai appears set to become the country’s first directly elected leader after a quarter-century of conflict.

    This is the effect of the continuing and relatively unsung pressure that has been placed on the bad guys in Afghanistan. The Taliban militia is essentially castrated, hoping for terrorism while unable to take the field in any significant manner for fear of being shredded. They cannot even pretend to keep up a sustained guerilla campaign, as the Afghan national army continues to train and grow.

    It must suck for Omar to be stuck on the mountainous sidelines, watching the freedom he despises beginning to take root. Afghanistan, and indeed the whole world, will be better off with death of the last Taliban scum.

  • Iwo Jima, Covered by Today’s Media

    From Zell Miller, voicing an argument I’ve held repeatedly of the media and the Dems:

    What if today’s reporters had covered the Marines landing on Iwo Jima, a small island in the far away Pacific Ocean, in the same way they’re covering the war in Iraq? Here’s how it might have looked:

    DAY 1

    With the aid of satellite technology, Cutie Cudley interviews Marine Pfc. John Doe, who earlier came ashore with 30,000 other Marines.

    Cutie: “John, we have been told by the administration that this island has great strategic importance because if you’re successful, it could become a fueling stop for our bombers on the way to Japan. But, as you know, we can’t be sure this is the truth. What do you think?”

    Pfc. Doe: “Well, I’ve been pinned down by enemy fire almost ever since I got here and have had a couple of buddies killed right beside me. I’m a Marine and I go where they send me. One thing’s for sure, they are putting up a fight not to give up this island.”

    Cutie: “Our military analysts tell us that the Japanese are holed up in caves and miles of connecting tunnels they’ve built over the years. How will you ever get them out?”

    Pfc. Doe: “With flame throwers, ma’am.”

    Cutie (incredulously): “Flame throwers? You’ll burn them alive?”

    Pfc. Doe: “Yes ma’am, we’ll fry their asses. Excuse me, I shouldn’t have said that on TV.”

    Cutie (audible gasp): “How horrible!”

    Pfc. Doe (obviously wanting to move on): “We’re at war ma’am.”

    Go read the rest. It’s pathetically believable.

  • Australian Troops to Stay in Iraq

    I said I had faith in the Aussies as they began going to the polls Down Under, and they redeemed that faith.

    Now, fresh off his victory, Prime Minister John Howard has firmly entrenched his country as one of our staunchest allies.

    Australian troops will stay in Iraq (news – web sites), Prime Minister John Howard declared Monday, as the stock market in Sydney hit a record high following the conservative leader’s election to a historic fourth term.

    At his first news conference since Saturday’s election increased the parliament majority of his center-right coalition, Howard said his priorities were guarding the nation’s security, working with allies to fight terrorism and maintaining the booming economy.

    The victory was a resounding vote of confidence in the government’s handling of Australia’s economy, which has low inflation, unemployment and interest rates, a budget surplus and low government debt.

    All this despite the antics of John Kerry’s sister.

    It should be noted that not all of Howard’s opposition have decided to take the results gracefully.

    Voter ignorance, greed and apathy returned the Coalition to government, a South Australian Greens MP said today.

    Kris Hanna, a former state Labor backbencher who joined the Greens last year, today said he was disappointed with the majority of Australian voters.

    “(Labor Leader Mark) Latham did his best to offer an alternative but too many Australians were not discerning or caring enough to vote (Prime Minister John) Howard out,” Mr Hanna said.

    Mr. Hanna missed his true calling as a Florida Democrat.

  • Bush Campaign to Base Ad on Kerry Terror Quote

    The Bush camp is planning on using John Kerry’s own words against him, as well they should.

    President Bush’s campaign announced Sunday its plans to use as the basis of a new commercial a quote from an 8,000-word New York Times Magazine article about Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

    The parsing prompted the Kerry camp to retort that the soon-to-be-released Bush ad was another example of the president’s campaign taking words out of context to create a misleading impression.

    Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! The Kerryites are concerned about a quote being taken out of context. Where is their concern as Kerry and his attack-puppy sidekick repeatedly take Vice-President Cheney’s words about the danger of another attack so out of context that they intentionally, completely change his meaning? After all, the Veep never said a Kerry election would increase the danger of a terrorist attack; rather, he argued it would increase the danger of such an attack being responded to in a pre-9/11 manner, a valid consideration.

    Are the Dems right in whining about context?

    The article, a largely analytical cover story in the magazine, says the interviewer asked Kerry “what it would take for Americans to feel safe again.”

    ”We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,” the article states as the Massachusetts senator’s reply.

    ”As a former law enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”

    Whatever part of Kerry’s statement you parse or take in it’s entirety, it is hard not to see an actual substantiation of Cheney’s point. Without victory over Islamist terrorism, those terrorists will never be just a nuisance. With an attitude of law enforcement and diplomacy as our primary weapons, that victory cannot be attained. Nor can it be attained if we insist that the focus of the war is Osama bin Laden instead of the greater whole of the radical Islamist movement.

    A Kerry spokesman defended his candidate against the substance of the charges.

    Reuters reported that the new Bush commercial’s script asks “How can Kerry protect us when he doesn’t understand the threat?”

    Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer called the Republican charges “absolutely ridiculous.”

    “This is yet another example of the Bush campaign taking John Kerry’s words out of context, and then blowing it up into something that is nothing,” he said.

    “The whole article is about how John Kerry recognizes that the war on terror requires a multipronged approach. It’s not just the military aspect, but you need diplomacy to be able to enlist your allies. The Bush people have never understood that. John Kerry has always said that terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the U.S.”

    Unfortunately, Kerry has not always said that terrorism is our top threat. From the first Bush-Kerry debate:

    LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.

    If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?

    KERRY: Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation.

    Now, I’ll be fair. Kerry tied this into terrorism, though not exclusively. He also tied it to the North Korea’s nuclear ambitions when he made the following statement in his continuing answer:

    And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.

    Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense.

    You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, “You can’t have nuclear weapons,” but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

    Not this president. I’m going to shut that program down, and we’re going to make it clear to the world we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation.

    In Kerry’s mind, the greatest danger the U.S. faces is nuclear proliferation, not Islamist terrorism. There may be some validity to this, but two points should be considered. First, it is contrary to the statement of the Kerry spokesman. Second, it is curious that Kerry’s answer to our alleged greatest danger is the policing up of known nuclear materials while cancelling our efforts to build a potential deterrent to future nuke sources.

    This point puts Kerry perfectly into context. It supports the Bush campaign’s questioning of Kerry’s view of the threat of terrorism based on his own quotes in the Times Magazine. It jibes with his inability to take a lasting stance (outside of hindsight) in favor of any offensive U.S. action, beginning at least with Viet Nam and continuing through today. Finally, it dovetails nicely with his support of a unilateral freeze in the ’80s in the face of another threat. Simply put, John Kerry does not understand our enemies, nor is he resolute in facing them in any manner other than to rely upon others and reduce our own efforts.