Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“If large numbers of people believe in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech even if the law forbids it. But if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”     George Orwell

July 11, 2007

Six Wasted Years

by Doug Mataconis

Less than six years after al Qaeda struck down the Twin Towers, it appears they’re back up to operational status:

Six years after the Bush administration declared war on al-Qaeda, the terrorist network is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan for training and planning attacks, according to a new Bush administration intelligence report to be discussed today at a White House meeting.

The report, a five-page threat assessment compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center, is titled “Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West,” intelligence officials said. It concludes that the group has significantly rebuilt itself despite concerted U.S. attempts to smash the network.

Which leads, of course, to the inevitable question:

What the frak have we been doing for the past six years ? What happened to the War on Terror ? The War against al Qaeda ? Why aren’t these people dead or in jail ?

Oh, wait, maybe the little diversion in Baghdad had something to do with that.

After all, going after a tinpot dictator who got his jollies sticking his finger in the eye of whoever happened to be President of the United States is far more important than destroying the terrorist network that killed 3,000 American citizens on one day.

You agree, don’t you ?

Because, if you don’t, then the only conclusion one can reach is that we’ve wasted the last six years.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/07/11/six-wasted-years/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

10 Comments

  1. Yes

    Comment by VRB — July 12, 2007 @ 12:32 am
  2. Till we have a third party, we will have a choice of bad(dems) or worse(Rep.)

    Comment by sunder — July 12, 2007 @ 1:34 am
  3. Pathetic. You call yourselves the “Liberty Papers” but apparently only care for the liberty of white skinned people? Christians? Free-Masons?

    There are dozens of links between al-queda and Saddam. Of course, places like this and MyDD and Daily Kos, think that George Bush and the “neocons” are a bigger threat than Jihadists.

    Is this site any different than Huff-Po? Not really. Except I can assume you venerate Pat Buchanan here.

    You really should change your name to “no liberty papers”

    Patrick Henry? Too funny.

    Comment by Marshall — July 12, 2007 @ 7:12 am
  4. I agree with Marshall.

    Al Queada has been an operational enemy for 6 years. The CIA – those jokesters who said the Soviet Economy was growing faster than the US Economy throughout the 50′s and 60′s – are idiots. I think it would be a bigger news story if we found out that the CIA was operational somewhere.

    The Al Queada “operations” in Pakistan is because we are kicking their asses in Afghanastan and Iraq.

    Comment by Stevend — July 12, 2007 @ 7:41 am
  5. I’ve never noticed ‘colour’ to be of issue here.

    Al qaida has been an ‘operational enemy’ for more than six years. The pacifist inside of me is bothered that the christian leadership that seems to rule this country has not yet turned the other cheek to obtain a moment of sit down talks with the islamists that want to destroy us. Apparently, some of us are only reading certain articles of this content to form comment on the whole. Just as, I assume, our leaders only read certain parts of their bibles.

    All in all, I’d rather live like Jesus than a christian. This site does not care solely for what you claim but please read on and learn for yourself.

    Comment by Symgharyl — July 12, 2007 @ 8:53 am
  6. So Bush possesses the most powerful military in the world and he 1) hasn’t defeated al-Qaeda, 2) hasn’t defeated the Taliban 3) isn’t winning in Iraq, 4) has made Iraq a worse place to live than it was under Saddam Hussein (which is no small feat), 5) has gotten more Americans killed in Iraq than in 9/11, 6) still can’t tell us what would constitute a “victory” either in Iraq or the War on Terror, and 7) said he is still sticking to the same strategy that has produced no tangible results in six years and has no end in sight.

    I know it’s usually dismissed as “Bush-bashing”, but I wonder if it’s really that irrational to question whether George W. Bush is the most incompetent president to ever sit in the White House? I’d certainly argue that he’s the worst commander-in-chief in U.S. history.

    Comment by UCrawford — July 12, 2007 @ 9:57 am
  7. UCrawford, where do you get your evidence? Daily Kos? MyDD? Huff-Po? Michael Yon is in Iraq and he doesn’t have the view that you, what, divined from a crystal ball?

    It isn’t just “dismissed as BDS”. You don’t have a single fact to back up your claims.

    1)Hasn’t defeated al-queda. Was there a timeline for victory?

    2)Same as before, is there a timeline? One you or the New York Times invented? Sure glad you were not around after the first Bull Run, or during Valley Forge. If you had been around at the time of the Battle of the Bulge you would have counted American casualties and said, “to hell with the Jew, support our troops through surrender”?

    3)Isn’t winning?!! Because we have not won, YET? Or because you hate Bush and really, really hope that we lose? Actually the ONLY way we can loose is by quitting, but that is exactly what you wish, isn’t it?

    4)A worse place than Saddam?! Your evidence? Oh, thats right, don’t need any, you hate Bush so you MUST be right.

    5)It is hard to not wish your death, after this one. Islamists, not Iraqi minutemen, kill Americans, not our elected President. You PoS.

    6)They have repeatedly said what would constitute victory, you just have not been listening. But, again, why should you, you hate Bush so you must be right.

    7)No tangible results?! Elections, free press, no more wedding night rapes by the Saddam boys. But who cares, that Bush is Stttuuupppidddd.

    You would argue “the worst C-in-C in history” but not back it up with anything?

    And Symgharyl, you should look in the Bible what Jesus does to the Pharasies in the temple. He does not have “sit down talks” with them.

    Liberty Papers!! Please. If we leave Iraq now will Liberty be spread, or increased? Oh that is right, you care not one whit for other’s Liberty, only your own. It would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad. I get fooled by the name of the site every time. I think, these people are going to support Human Liberty and Individual freedom around the globe. Oh, just not in Iraq, or if we have to fight for it.

    Soulless is what describes you better.

    Comment by Marshall — July 13, 2007 @ 7:15 am
  8. Liberty Papers!! Please. If we leave Iraq now will Liberty be spread, or increased? Oh that is right, you care not one whit for other’s Liberty, only your own. It would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad. I get fooled by the name of the site every time. I think, these people are going to support Human Liberty and Individual freedom around the globe. Oh, just not in Iraq, or if we have to fight for it.

    ROTFLMAO… First it was WMDs… now it’s “spreading liberty…”

    Man, I thought anyone with a pulse knows by now the war in Iraq was about protecting the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

    Soulless is what describes you better.

    Careful, Marshall, there may be a boogeyman out to get ya… ;-)

    Comment by js290 — July 13, 2007 @ 8:24 am
  9. The U.S. is notspreading liberty in Iraq.

    Otherwise american soldiers would not have been arresting people for manufacturing electricity illegally, selling gasoline illegally, smuggling cigarettes etc.

    The U.S. government tried to put in place a strong socialist state that would be a close ally of the U.S. government. Liberty for the common Iraqi was nothing more than a mostly empty talking point.

    Granted, if the U.S. occupation had gone well and according to plan, the Iraqi’s would have more liberty than they did under Hussein, but that’s like saying that Jews in a concentration camp would be more well-fed if the Nazi’s doubled their food ration to 1200 calories a day.

    Comment by tarran — July 13, 2007 @ 11:19 am
  10. Marshall,

    I got my info from serving for 10 years as an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Army in support of Iraq, doing a tour of duty in Afghanistan (where I was attempting to help us “win”) and reading the same newspapers and mainstream sources anyone else has access to. I don’t actually read any of the sites you mentioned because I’m quite capable of forming my own opinions without having them recited to me by a pundit who probably knows less than I do.

    My comments about al-Qaeda have been validated by the Director of National Intelligence, who just said that al-Qaeda is as strong now as at any time post-9/11.(http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/13/terror.threat/index.html)

    My opinion of his campaign against al-Qaeda was formed while I served in Afghanistan, where our forces were attacked on a nightly basis with impunity from the AFPAK border by al-Qaeda/Taliban forces, while the Pakistani border guards denied it was happening and while Bush continued to laud Musharraf’s efforts as our “ally”.(http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/pakistan_throws.html)

    My opinion on Iraq being worse is based on the fact that Iraq didn’t have tens of thousands of civilian casualties a year and a major insurgency going on under Saddam. Life sucked, but at least the Iraqis didn’t have snipers in the marketplaces, people could live relatively peacefully in ethnically mixed areas, and Saddam kept Iran in check for us. Now we’ve got an Iran-friendly government that’s destabilizing our allies in Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia and is sponsoring ethnic cleansing against the Sunni with our unwitting support. We’ve replaced one oppressive government with another, less competent, one and made life worse for our allies. Maybe my military training wasn’t clear on this point, but I was always told that this was the exact opposite of what a successful mission was supposed to do.

    Wish my death? Ha!!! Go join the Army and serve in the warzone if you’re so intent on killing for your cause…otherwise you’re just a do-nothing loser with a keyboard and a half-baked opinion. Bush got those troops killed because the war with Iraq was unnecessary…Saddam had no operational ties to al-Qaeda, Saddam had no WMD, we had no intelligence saying otherwise or that any kind of attack was pending against us from Iraq, so there was no justification to attack them. If our troops weren’t in Iraq, they wouldn’t be getting shot by Iraqis or foreign insurgents in Iraq, and since Bush ordered them to be there, then yes, I consider Bush directly responsible for their deaths. And BTW, if Bush hadn’t gotten rid of Saddam, he’d be killing al-Qaeda in Iraq for us…getting his troops killed and not ours, denying them the safe haven that Bush now claims they have.

    Elections? Dictatorships have elections all the time. Saddam’s Iraq had elections (although they were rigged). Free societies also protect individual rights, in addition to having elections, to prevent a tyranny of the majority and protect the people from government corruption, which Iraq doesn’t do. Take some time to study the history behind de-Ba’athification or the Coalition Provisional Authority, or better check out my blog sometime before you start sounding off about the wonderful free Iraq.

    As for my personal Bush-hating, I actually voted for the guy in 2000, after which I watched him ignore our Constitutional protections, claim the law doesn’t apply to him when he doesn’t want it to, endorse the torture of detained prisoners, set up a sham tribunal system that his own military doesn’t endorse, ignore or dismiss advice from his generals that contradicted his own preconceived opinions about troop numbers and cost, and put us well on the way to losing two wars (one of which he started) against inferior military opponents. And he did all this while spending our tax money like a drunken sailor on shore leave and filling up his administration with incompetents to reward people who vote Republican. So Bush pretty much earned my animosity with his actions, not based on who his daddy was. And yeah, I think that pretty much sums up the case that he’s the worst CoC in U.S. history, if not the worst President in U.S. history. Where’s your case that he’s doing a good job?

    (sound of crickets chirping)

    Comment by UCrawford — July 13, 2007 @ 12:17 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML