Homeland Security flack Fran Townsend details the Bush administration’s crack strategy to defeat Al Qaeda. We’re going to harass them to death.
You see, instead of killing Al Qaeda members, we’re:
* Calling them, then hanging up the phone
* “Forgetting” to put the milk in the fridge
* Poking them
* Making high pitched noises while they try to sleep
* Putting our finger one inch away from them and then say “I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you” (suggested by reader Cori M.)
* Making faces at them when mom and dad aren’t looking
At some point this pointed “harassment” is going to make Al Qaeda walk off in a huff, kicking at air in their complete frustration.
And here I was, naively thinking we should kill terrorists.
It’s like the Venture Bros. and the uprising against Baron Underbheit in Underland.
“And here I was, naively thinking we should kill terrorists.”
Actually weren’t you thinking we should invade Pakistan – which goes way beyond naivete.
And here I was, naively thinking we should kill terrorists.
… Unless they’re in Iraq. Then we should leave them be.
“Actually weren’t you thinking we should invade Pakistan – which goes way beyond naivete”
Please get back to us when Musharraf gets tossed in the same undemocratic way as when he first ascended to power.
Somehow I get a feeeling when that happens, that many irony-hanidcapped wingnut will then look at Pakistan the way they did Iran circa 1979. That is of course, with a comic-book knowledge of history as well.
hmmm.. you left out “Taunting”
Although we haven’t heard a really good taunt from the White House for months, maybe years.
Ahh, where have the halcyon days of “Bring It ON!!” and “Major Combat Operations in Iraq have ended, and in the battle of Iraq, the United States Has Prevailed” and “We will Bring Osama to Justice DEAD OR ALIVE!!” gone?
Another good harrassment sponsored by the White House is the loud broadcasting of rap music, which was used to torture suspected (convicted, in wingnuttia) Al-Qaida detainees around the world, as well as in Baghdad neighborhoods where we wanted to make the point we were in control.
That REALLY worked well, didn’t it?
Give them some credit. If the Bush administration has moved to harassing them, maybe they will stop promoting them and aiding them in their goals. Then, maybe, when we get a real president it won’t be such a huge step over to “fighting them” and being “successful” and “winning”.
You totally forgot about not replacing the toilet-paper roll!
I never said we should invade Pakistan, you just made that up. And I don’t buy the propaganda that the people fighting us in Iraq are just generic “terrorists”.
I never said we should invade Pakistan, you just made that up.
Not once, but “several million times”.
And you’re right: the folks fighting against us in Iraq aren’t just generic terrorists. It’s actually al Qaida.
What Oliver said was, Osama’s almost certainly in Pakistan, let’s do something about that. Invading probably isn’t the best option, but it’s interesting how quickly it leaps into your imagination as the ONLY one.
Farris, are you fucking blind
It might be a good idea in the future to not link to something that actively proves you wrong.
How about ordering, like, 1.000 pizzas to be delivered to al-Qaeda’s lair?
Farris and dugger, your dishonesty is breathtaking.
Oliver’s “we should go after al-Qadea in Pakistan” but “I never said we should invade Pakistan” argument reminds me of the Senate Democrats — “we voted to give Bush authority to use military force, but we never actually told him to use military force.”
Either you expand a war into a specific theater, or you don’t. Or maybe Oliver believes that we can airlift commandos from Okinawa, drop them in at night, and then evac them all before dawn, day after day, and never get caught.
Just because you morons can’t tell the difference between a military operation and a war of occupation, don’t get upset when you get shown up.
And while I may not agree with the vote on Iraq, the congress voted to authorize the use of force – President Bush is the one who decided the route should be an invasion and occupation.
You can borrow my car, but you can’t take it off any sweet jumps.
According to our gracious host, Bush should have used a different kind of “force” in Iraq:
* the 102nd Kite Flying Brigade.
* the ATF agents that stormed Waco.
* A kitten and puppy armada.
* Sharp Sticks to the Eye (oh wait, that’d be torture. Never mind…)
Could you please be a little more specific on the “force” you’d use to Monday Morning Quarterback Iraq?
I’ll ask again; isn’t Pakistan one of our allies in this GWoT? didn’t Bush say anyone who harbored terrorists was gonna get it?
Nimrod, I can’t believe you’re going to hold me accountable because Oliver was for Invading Pakistan before he was against it.
It just amazes me that the Bush administration gives a billion dollars a year to a country that shelters Osama bin Laden.
Of course they pour unaccounted for billions of dollars into Iraq, so the US can apparently continuously capture the ‘new’ top Al Qaeda guy in Iraq fresh off the terrorist assembly line Bush turned the country into.
And Farris, how about Bush sends over an EXIT STRATEGY.
Not gonna address my question are you, Farris?
Duros,
Let me address it by asking a question in return: didn’t Bush’s political opponents accuse Bush of using “Cowboy” language and rake him over the coals for “dead or alive” and “you’re with us or you’re against us”? Now that he’s chosen a diplomatic path in this situation and found a shade of gray in the heretofore black and white world, shouldn’t your side be out there taking credit for the idea and congratulating the President for finally coming on board to your suggestions?
SaveFarris | Jul 18, 2007 2:18:41 PM
“Now that he’s chosen a diplomatic path in this situation … ”
HOW many years — YEARS — and deaths later?
Please show anywhere where I said we should invade Pakistan. You can’t, because you just made it up.
Let me change the subject again to paper over that my Dear Leader has failed to catch the person who murdered 3,000 of my countrymen.
I’m not holding you accountable for anything, I’m just pointing out the part where you quite obviously demonstrated your stupidity. Which still seems invisible to you.
So Oliver, you’re in favor of “military operations” in Pakistan, but not an invasion.
What exactly are you talking about then? Pakistan isn’t going to allow us to just conduct a “military operation” in their country. How do you propose this gets done?
That somehow fails to address the question almost entirely. Point me to this so-called diplomatic plan involving Pakistan and al qaeda. Do you mean.
“We know al Qaeda is operating in your country and we want to come in and get ‘em.”
“No.”
“Oh, okay then.”
Using the military doesn’t automatically mean claiming this land for Spain.
This kind of thing is why the UN exists. Oops.
Nimrod, you bite your tongue!
Hey, OW is clueless about military operations. He has zero idea of the size force that would be required to go into the Pakistan tribal areas (over which the Pakistani government has very little control) and root out AQ operatives there. Zero. I’m sure Superman could do it and maybe in some movies a small 3-man team can go in under cover, kill the AQ types and sneak out. As if we could have done that and decided not to. Read the history of Desert One. Understand how operations go bad and how operations grow. that was the concern with original oepration. It was getting too big. BTW, and who is it that knows exactly where the AQ bad guys are – real time?
Dugger | Jul 18, 2007 3:46:02 PM
“Hey, OW is clueless about military operations.”
Coz, hey, Iraq is an awesome example of having a clue about military operations …?
Nimrod, we’re not talking about “claiming land.”
Oliver has consistently advocated “killing terrorists.” He claims we’re wasting time in Iraq, because we should be elsewhere “killing terrorists.”
Now, how do we do that? Via the military. Yet, Oliver says he doesn’t advocate invading another country, but he does favor “military operations.”
That kind of double-speak would make a Presidential candidate proud.
So all I am asking is for Oliver to explain how the United States should conduct these “military operations” to help “kill terrorists” in other countries like Pakistan, without actually invading said countries.
We already pay Pakistan for that Jay.
Do you guys not understand that the US pays Pakistan $1 billion/ year to undertake the sort of military operations that Oliver suggests. Operations that Pakistan just doesn’t bother to undertake despite taking our money. Or worse still, we pay Pakistan $1 billion a year to make peace with Al Qaeda and Taliban militants.
The same way we’ve conducted military operations against hundreds of nations without invading and occupying the country. Why is this so hard for you guys to comprehend? And exactly why would I somehow value the cheerleaders of the Iraq war as superior military minds to me? I was right the last time around, and you guys were amazingly, horrifically wrong. But I should defer to you because… something…
The same way we’ve conducted military operations against hundreds of nations without invading and occupying the country.
And how is it we go in and kill terrorists without going in to the country? And if you go into the country with military force, guess what they call that. Guess what we would call that.
A slam dunk?
The same way we’ve conducted military operations against hundreds of nations without invading and occupying the country.
Oh for crissakes, could you supply a MORE intellectually lazy answer?
If the solution is so simple as you make it out to be, then freaking explain it. How do we conduct military operations inside of Pakistan to kill terrorists, especially if Pakistan says they won’t allow our military to come in?
The same goes for all the other countries where you thing we should be “killing terrorists.”
Explain or just be a man and say, “I don’t know.”
A slam dunk?
Bwah-hahahaha!
Thanks for that Squirrel.
So you guys don’t think we should kill terrorists wherever they are? Okay, thanks for clearing that up.
Well, Mr. Bush did say “you’re either with us or against us.” I wonder which column he puts Pakistan in?
Just curious.
Thanks, Duros!
I preferred Dugger’s stunned silence last November.
What exactly are you talking about then? Pakistan isn’t going to allow us to just conduct a “military operation” in their country. How do you propose this gets done?
Simple, threaten to cut funding to the country. If we can’t hurt the terrorists in their persons, we might as well hurt them in their pocketbooks.
So you guys don’t think we should kill terrorists wherever they are? Okay, thanks for clearing that up.
Of course they don’t want to kill the terrorists. Its thanks to them that were able to get a stranglehold on our country. They ove them for getting them where they are today.
If the solution is so simple as you make it out to be, then freaking explain it. How do we conduct military operations inside of Pakistan to kill terrorists, especially if Pakistan says they won’t allow our military to come in?
It’s called the CIA. Do you expect me to believe that they can assassinate democraticly elected leaders of Latin American countries, but they can’t kill a few terrorists?
“How do we conduct military operations inside of Pakistan to kill terrorists, especially if Pakistan says they won’t allow our military to come in?”
You know i don’t seem to recall this argument being made when we invaded Afghanistan, although i do recall that the Taliban wasn’t too keen on allowing us to come in either.
If you guys want to argue that pakistan is different than afghanistan, fine. Is Musharraf’s military dictatorship preferable to the Taliban’s crazy radicals when they both appear to be protecting the same bunch of terrorists?
But we all know that invading Pakistan is out of the question. We also know that more limited military strikes would only destabilize the Musharraf government, especially if it was seen or thought to have supported it.
So what to do? Well, someone mentioned the funding route: end it if we don’t get what we want. How does that make Musharraf look any better than if he sanctioned or supported a military option? I don’t know.
Bottom line is Bush has left us with no good answers because his foreign policy has so riled the Muslim population in places like Pakistan that not even Musharraf, a military strongman and our supposed ally, wants to push it.
great job guys. great job.
It’s called the CIA. Do you expect me to believe that they can assassinate democraticly elected leaders of Latin American countries, but they can’t kill a few terrorists?
First of all, the CIA is not the military. They are a clandestine organization. That being said, are you saying you’re an advocate for covert operations and special forces missions that would send guys into other countries to “kill terrorists?”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for it, but I’d like to see you or Oliver reconcile your position with all of your ‘law and order’ hoopla we’ve heard about for the last few years. After all, conducting such covert operations are violations of international law.
That being said, are you saying you’re an advocate for covert operations and special forces missions that would send guys into other countries to “kill terrorists?”
Yes.
I guess if Musharraf was dropping puppies off the roof, we’d have more justification, though, right?
Look, obviously, bringing bad guys to justice is preferable in any situation. Failing that, you gotta play it where it lies.
That’s my reconciliation, anyway.
“I’d like to see you or Oliver reconcile your position with all of your ‘law and order’ hoopla we’ve heard about for the last few years.”
Because the most important thing is for Oliver to be clear and coherent in his foreign policy proclamations. It is not important for the President to do the same.
Because the most important thing is for Oliver to be clear and coherent in his foreign policy proclamations. It is not important for the President to do the same.
If you say so.
Well, Jay you seem to be more concerned about Oliver’s consistency than you are with the President’s.
The discussion is about Oliver’s consistency. I’m asking him about his position, not the President’s. It has nothing to do with what I am more concerned with.
I think Oliver has been pretty consistent throughout. Get bad guys. Make them pay.
“It has nothing to do with what I am more concerned with.”
Classic.
Why can’t we go into Pakistan and take out the Al Qaeda leadership?
The answer, of course, is IRAQ. That’s where our perceived mission changed from self-protection to imperialism.
Duros, the point is, Oliver is always talking about “killing terrorists.” He says of course that he doesn’t favor invading any countries so I ask him how he thinks we should go about “killing terrorists” and he mentions “military operations” and says, “We do it like we always have.”
I’m merely asking if he’s in favor of covert ops and special forces type actions and if so, how does he reconcile that with all of his “rule of law” chatter that we’ve heard about the last few years. The reason I ask is that covert ops and missions using Navy Seals or Delta would more likely than not violate international law. If he wants to brag about how right he is, then he should be in a pretty easy position to back that up.
Of course, it gets lost when nitwits like Frameone tries to save the day by attempting to deflect the issue by questioning my supposed lack of concern regarding the President’s consistency. That’s a called a red herring.
“Of course, it gets lost when nitwits like Frameone tries to save the day by attempting to deflect the issue by questioning my supposed lack of concern regarding the President’s consistency.”
Because naturally Oliver’s concern for the rule of law is more important than whether the president gives a shit about it or not.
We’ll just note for the record that Jay’s support for the rule of law flies in the face of his support for torture.
(apparently being a hypocritical idiot is not something Jay is at all concerned with either)
ADD TO THE HARASSMENT LIST
- Butter Bin Ladin’s kitchen floor and call the home phone.
missions using Navy Seals or Delta would more likely than not violate international law.
Since when do we givashit about that?
“Since when do we givashit about that?”
Since Jay and Dugger decided that we should be …
Is it because Pakistan can push back? Chickenshits.
It all gets down to what is in the self interest of this country. Arguing about going into Iraq is useless now because we are in Iraq. Pakistan is much larger and all Muslim. A war there would dwarf Iraq. There is no way to go into the tribal hinterlands and take on AQ without using significant military force. Zython’s CIA crap is laughable. Why do you think it took so long to get Saddam? Why I guess we could have just had the CIA kill him instantly or ‘do it like we’ve always done it.’ Bingo. Progressive foreign policy. Wonder why those stupid soldiers didn’t listen to Zython or OW. By the time you have verified intel on where a bad guy is, he has moved. You guys are a joke.
“You guys are a joke.”
And this concludes one of the most inconsistent and insane posts dugger has coughed up in a while.
First of all, the CIA is not the military. They are a clandestine organization
I know that. I never said that I supported a military force.
That being said, are you saying you’re an advocate for covert operations and special forces missions that would send guys into other countries to “kill terrorists?”
Well, either that or capture and try them. Personally, I’d be in favor of the latter.
The answer, of course, is IRAQ. That’s where our perceived mission changed from self-protection to imperialism.
That, and that without actual terrorists being at large, Bush & the GOP would be nothing.
By the time you have verified intel on where a bad guy is, he has moved.
So what do you propose we do? I mean, besides letting your hero, Osama, get away?
“So what do you propose we do?’
You realize that plenty of smart people in the military with a helluva lot more data than you or I are working on this constantly. Which means that anybody who tells you there is an easy, bumper sticker answer is full of crap. Again, look how long it took to get Saddam (he was very mobile) – when we fully controlled all of the countryside militarily.
Vigilance and perseverance are the only answers at present. Most needed is hard core, reliable intel. If we knew he and one or two others were going to be at the Islamabad Hojo for two weeks, the small hit team idea might work. But that hasn’t ever been the case.
And make no mistake about it. This situation will be exactly the same under a Dem CinC. It will be the same military, same planners, same intel sources, same limitations, same results.
Why I guess we could have just had the CIA kill (Saddam) instantly
Well, that is actually against the law. The CIA can’t assassinate heads of state (that’s their story and they’re sticking to it), but OBL is not a head of state.
It will be the same military, same planners, same intel sources, same limitations, same results.
Hopefully, we’ll get some more qualified people to run it by then.
Am I the only one that notices Pakistan’s declining cooperation and support of US anti-terrorism efforts hastened since the IRaq invasion.
The biggest obstacle to anti-terrorism efforts in Pakistan are a direct result of anti-US sentiment, which has mushroomed since the US invasion of Iraq.
Expressed militarily, the US has been paying Pakistan over $1 billion annually to conduct military operations on our behalf. Over the past few years, these operations have grown more infrequent to the point that the Pakistan government pretty much does nothing for that money now.
And it isn’t just militarily that this decline has hurt anti-terrorism efforts. It has hurt cooperation in law enforcement as well, with fewer arrests and fewer checks on militants
Intelligence suffers. Less cooperation there between US and Pakistan.
Politically. Anti-US sentiment colors government actions and has given rise to pro-taliban groups. Pakistan’s government exerts little control over some areas of the country.
“Am I the only one that notices Pakistan’s declining cooperation and support of US anti-terrorism efforts hastened since the IRaq invasion.”
Why yes, you are.
Well, now you know, and knowing is half the battle.