There's been a lot of talk in Canada over the past few weeks about Afghanistan.
In particular, the governing Conservative party and opposition Liberal party have both been touting their plans for Afghanistan. The Conservatives have recently announced that they're willing to extend the combat mission to 2011 -- and put their government on the line doing it -- if NATO can drum up an additional 1,000 troops for Kandahar.NATO has already proven quite amicable to this idea -- France has already pledged an additional 700 paratroopers for the volatile region.
The Liberal position, meanwhile, has been less than clear. It's basically been outlined as "remain in Afghanistan, but shift away from combat".
"Our position is very clear and we're very united around this position. I'm just saying that maybe we weren't clear enough in communicating it, so we should be clear," Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez admitted.
And so the Liberals have taken it upon themselves to make their alternative mission crystal clear.
Lo and behold, it turns out that the Liberal alternative to the mission they themselves initiated is almost entirely unfeasible.
Basically, the Liberals' alternative plan works out into three basic points:
"• NATO must secure troops to rotate into Kandahar to allow Canadian troops to be deployed pursuant to the mission priorities training and reconstruction;
• The government must secure medium helicopter lift and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; and
• The Government of Canada must immediately notify NATO that Canada will end its military presence in Kandahar as of February 1, 2011 and as of that date, the deployment of the Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar will start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by July 1, 2011."
"The Liberal amendment also stipulates that after February 2009, Canada’s mission in Afghanistan should consist of training the Afghan National Security Forces, providing security for reconstruction and development projects in Kandahar, and continuing Canada’s responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team," the Liberal party press release continues.
It's in regards to this last particular passage that the Liberal plan -- at least the third and seemingly most important principle of it -- falls entirely to pieces.
Helicopters and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles would actually be extremely valuable resources for Canadian troops in Afghanistan to have -- the Liberals should be applauded for recognizing this. Also, a Canadian shift away from combat toward reconstruction and training the Afghan army would require NATO produce troops to replace them.This being said, the Liberal party plan falls apart as soon as one takes into consideration that the Canadian mission in Kandahar, so long as it continues, will be a combat mission.
The plan is also entirely unfeasible in setting 2011 as an end date for the Kandahar mission. While Canada certainly needs an exit strategy in Kandahar in particular and Afghanistan as a whole, the simple fact of the matter is that a time-oriented exit strategy is a recipe for failure.
What is needed is a task-oriented exit strategy. And while a time frame should certainly be set outlining the period of time in which we plan to achieve these goals, we cannot allow that time frame to dictate the rest of the mission to us.
Most of all, the Liberals are trying to sell Canadians a choice that simply doesn't exist. We can either choose a non-combat mission, or we can choose to continue the vital mission in Kandahar. We cannot have it both ways, and this all comes back to a point of fact that the Liberals simply don't seem to comprehend:
The Talibian is active in Kandahar, and they won't lay down their arms simply because we're training the Afghan army and building civil infrastructure. If we go on the defensive, the Taliban will simply go on the offensive. And they will not relent.As such, so long as Canadian troops are in Kandahar, neither should we.
The Liberals need to go back to the drawing board, and we as Canadians need to keep sending them back to the drawing board until they understand the realities on the ground in Afghanistan.
You clearly haven't got a clue. Your political "analysis" is a pile of moralistic, fact-free piffle.
ReplyDeleteA senior UK official, Lord Ashdown, said in October that NATO is currently losing in Afghanistan and should that happen Pakistan could fall and a region-wide Shia-Sunni conflict ensue. A political solution is required that will, of necessity, involve the Taliban. Pakistan suggested a Taliban government in Nov 2006, one that would be sympathetic to their interests and would not involve Hamid Karzai. The US has also been strongly criticized for some time by UK leaders for following aggressive military policies, especially air strikes, leading to needless civilian deaths and Taliban recruitments. A second problem is that the US, short on troops. NATO says 400,000 troops are needed to do the job. The US has instead relied heavily on drug-trafficking war lords to control different regions—people like Defense Minister Mohammed Fahim and General Abdul Rashid Dostum—who rob the Afghanis blind. The people want the Taliban in order to be safe from criminals coming out of the national government! Afghanistan is destined to fail because there is insufficient human resources to ensure civilian safety. The political consequences are likely to be far more severe than failure in Iraq. And a military victory against the Taliban is simply not going to happen. Capturing Musa Qala was an exercise in futility.
Overall, the US is engaged in an immoral, politically pointless and ineffectual military occupation of Afghanistan. If you want some intelligent commentary (as opposed to your rubbish!) try Chris Floyd, Eric Margolis or Jeff Huber.
Sure Pakistan would prefer a Taliban government in Afghanistan. That must be why they're arresting the Taliban's leaders.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, General Dan McNeil did suggest that 400,000 troops would be needed in Afghanistan according to "US military counterinsurgency doctrine". Now, if you personally put absolute faith in US military doctrine, that's all and fine. I just don't think that's the particular basket you want to put your eggs in.
Furthermore, if the people of Afghanistan really wanted the Taliban as you suggest, one also expects that so many of them wouldn't have invested the effort in fighting them that they did (vis a vis the United Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (also known as the Northern Alliance). Furthermore, while the Pashtun tribes have never submitted to central government, the remaining 60% of Afghanistan's population has never willfully submitted to anything that even resembles a Pashtun government. You can certainly try to pretend that the Taliban is the Afghan people's government of choice, but more than a decade of civil war in Afghanistan under the Taliban contradicts that claim.
If you want to deliver a lecture about civilian casualties, that's all and fine, too. There is a point to made there. However, then you'll also have to acknowledge that while civilian casualties have been suffered in the course of attacking military targets in Afghanistan, the Taliban has "fought back" by attacking civilian targets directly.
If we are indeed losing the hearts and minds of the Afghan people -- and this, by the way, depends entirely on where you look in Afghanistan, and I'm tempted to agree that in Kandahar we are losing that particular fight -- it's largely due to the Taliban's terrorist campaign against the Afghan people.
Frankly, there's a big, big question about who in Afghanistan we should and shouldn't be negotiating a peace with. Negotiating with the Taliban, as we speak, remains a non-starter for NATO and the Afghan government, and should remain so. Some of the other insurgent leaders, such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, however, should be subject to some form of diplomacy.
If you were really the slightest bit aware of Afghan history, you would be well aware that Hekmatyar is practically guaranteed to go back to war with the Taliban the moment NATO forces leave Afghanistan.
So, you're clearly in no position to attempt to lecture me about facts.
Judging from the fact that your idea of "intelligent commentary" is strictly that which already agrees with you, I simply find it impossible to take your admonishments seriously.
Certainly, General Dan McNeil did suggest that 400,000 troops would be needed in Afghanistan according to "US military counterinsurgency doctrine". Now, if you personally put absolute faith in US military doctrine, that's all and fine. I just don't think that's the particular basket you want to put your eggs in.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a question of "putting faith" in anything. Those are the sorts of troop levels needed to exercise effective security for a country like Afghanistan. The low troop numbers they have mean that militarily the US is forced to rely on air strikes. That means killing a lot of innocent Afghans and pissing off the locals. That's why I find your post about the logistics of troop deployments within the current setting to be irrelevant. Afghanistan requires a political, not a military, solution which NATO leaders well recognize.
Furthermore, if the people of Afghanistan really wanted the Taliban as you suggest...
No-one's suggesting that but they don't have a choice. The Taliban might force the women into burkas and chop off the hands of thieves but people can walk or drive down the street without Fahim and Dostum's forces pulling them over and robbing and raping them. The US is relying on narco lords and crime gangs. That's not a foreign policy worth the name.
Sure Pakistan would prefer a Taliban government in Afghanistan. That must be why they're arresting the Taliban's leaders.
Let's put it this way: they'll support anybody they think they can control in pursuit of Pakistan's interests. It is a matter of historical record that they were willing to accept a Taliban government at the end of 2006. I'm aware the circumstances have changed.
I can still make no sense of what you expect Western forces to achieve in Afghanistan in the current circumstances. It's a rolling disaster that can only be improved by a political solution. I don't pretend to have an easy fix to hand but the current military and occupation strategy is not working at all. And certainly your ruminations on the mechanics of it are a waste of time.
Judging from the fact that your idea of "intelligent commentary" is strictly that which already agrees with you, I simply find it impossible to take your admonishments seriously.
If you are happy to cite fools as some proof of your intellectual breadth who am I to stand in your way?
"No-one's suggesting that but they don't have a choice. The Taliban might force the women into burkas and chop off the hands of thieves but people can walk or drive down the street without Fahim and Dostum's forces pulling them over and robbing and raping them. The US is relying on narco lords and crime gangs. That's not a foreign policy worth the name."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. They have a choice: Hammad Karzai.
What you seem to be forgetting is that individuals like Fahim and Dostum controlled a significant portion of Afghanistan prior to the Taliban's defeat. Even if the situation under such individuals is as bad as you say it is, things were no different under the Taliban and would be no different if the Taliban were to reassume power.
At least in the current situation, these individuals can be controlled. If the Taliban is allowed to return to power and civil war resumes (as it absolutely will), things will be no different. In fact, they will be worse.
"Let's put it this way: they'll support anybody they think they can control in pursuit of Pakistan's interests. It is a matter of historical record that they were willing to accept a Taliban government at the end of 2006. I'm aware the circumstances have changed."
No, you really don't seem to be. Either that, or you expect other people to not be aware of it.
The fact of the matter is that Pakistan is just as interested in defeating the Taliban as NATO is. They have just as much to lose as Afghanistan does if the Taliban returns to power, because it will strengthen Taliban efforts to overthrow the Pakistani government as well.
"I can still make no sense of what you expect Western forces to achieve in Afghanistan in the current circumstances. It's a rolling disaster that can only be improved by a political solution. I don't pretend to have an easy fix to hand but the current military and occupation strategy is not working at all. And certainly your ruminations on the mechanics of it are a waste of time."
Yet you seem to be spending more than your fair share of time on it.
But rolling disaster, you say? I think history will record otherwise.
To date, there have been a total of 700 NATO casualties in Afghanistan. In just over six years.
By contrast, more than 58,000 soldiers died in the Korean War -- in three years. And history records that as a victory.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the majority of the country has been stabilized, and remain largely satisfied with the situation on the ground. Kandahar and Helmand are proving to be tougher battles, but they can be won -- regardless of what the cut-and-run crowd seems to think.
It does require a good deal of humanitarian and development work, but we have to come to grips with the fact that Kandahar is a combat mission, and will remain so for as long as we are there.
"If you are happy to cite fools as some proof of your intellectual breadth who am I to stand in your way?"
Well, given the opportunity, I'll feel free to share your opinions regarding Michael Ignatieff, JL Granatstein, Margaret Thatcher, general Wesley Clark and Benjamin Barber (among others) with them. But I really don't expect much of a response other than "Kenj? Who the fuck is that?"
"Kenj? Who the fuck is that?"
ReplyDeleteI suppose I could say the same about you. I know who Margaret Thatcher is and she was a complete waste of time. But former senior UK diplomat Lord Ashdown said: "We have lost, I think, and success is now unlikely."
This echoes the words of Lord Inge, the former chief of the UK defence staff: "The situation in Afghanistan is much worse than many people recognise...We need to face up to that issue, the consequence of strategic failure in Afghanistan and what that would mean for Nato... We need to recognise that the situation - in my view, and I have recently been in Afghanistan - is much, much more serious than people want to recognise."
And Sir Jock Stirrup, UK Chief of Defence Staff summed it up best when he said: "There is a common misperception that the issues in Afghanistan, and indeed elsewhere around the world, can be dealt with by military means. That's a false perception. The military is a key, an essential element in dealing with those problems, but by and large these problems can only be resolved politically."
Here's Seymour Hersh (I know, I know...)
Hamid Karzai was consistently depicted by others as unsure of himself and totally dependent on the United States for security and finances. One of Karzai’s many antagonists is his own defense minister, Mohammed Fahim. Last year, the Bush Administration was privately given a memorandum by an Afghan official and American ally, warning that Fahim was working to undermine Karzai and would use his control over money from illegal businesses and customs revenue to do so. Fahim was also said to have recruited at least eighty thousand men into new militias.
The United States’ continuing toleration of warlords such as Fahim and General Abdul Rashid Dostum—an alleged war criminal and gunrunner who, after being offered millions of dollars by Washington, helped defeat the Taliban in the fall of 2001—mystifies many who have long experience in Afghanistan. “Fahim and Dostum are part of the problem, and not the solution,” said Milt Bearden, who ran the C.I.A.’s Afghan operations during the war with the Soviet Union. "These people have the clever gene and they can get us to do their fighting for them. They just lead us down the path,” Bearden said. “How wonderful for them to have us knock off their opposition with American airplanes and Special Forces."
You say-- To date, there have been a total of 700 NATO casualties in Afghanistan. In just over six years. By contrast, more than 58,000 soldiers died in the Korean War -- in three years. And history records that as a victory. -- What, don't the Afghan civilian casualties count?
And I know you'll just love it if I quote John Pilger:
When the Americans invaded Afghanistan in 2001 they had one striking success. They brought to an abrupt end a historic ban on opium production that the Taliban regime had achieved. A UN official in Kabul described the ban to me as "a modern miracle." The miracle was quickly rescinded. As a reward for supporting the Karzai "democracy," the Americans allowed Northern Alliance warlords to replant the country's entire opium crop in 2002. Twenty-eight out of the 32 provinces instantly went under cultivation. Today, 90 per cent of world trade in opium originates in Afghanistan.
Militarily and socially, the West is simply biding time in Afghanistan.
To counter that, I can simply offer my Michael Ignatieff exclusive:
ReplyDelete"We don't know what success looks like in Afghanistan but we sure know what failure looks like. The Taliban take over, civil war restarts. The girls who are going to school don't go to school. The women who get health care as they deliver their children don't get health care. We slide back. I speak with feeling on this matter because I happened to be in Kabul in September 1997 when the Taliban took the city. I've spoken with the Taliban, I've worked with the Taliban, I've talked with the Taliban, and I know what they think about women.
This isn't propaganda.
Victory is not clear. But losing this is pretty clear to me, and I don't think we want to lose."
And I agree full-heartedly with mr Ignatieff on this (it's one of the few things on which I agree with him).
I suppose I could take your word for this, and simply accept your cherry-picked and one-sided criticisms of the mission.
That being said, I've read on both sides of this issue and can say for absolutely certain that fighting the Taliban in Kandahar is absolutely crucial not only for peace and stability not only in Afghanistan, but also globally.
And you can say what you will about opium in Afghanistan. The re-cultivation of opiates in Afghanistan actually presents an opportunity to the Afghan people -- they can re-invent their opium economy from the sale of illicit drugs to the sale of pharmaceuticals.
The Taliban certainly could have done this as well, particularly with the help of the international community. Their destruction of opium crops actually only demonstrates their mismanagement of Afghanistan's economy, and is only another reason why they shouldn't be allowed to return to power.
Then, frankly, there's the human rights issues. Oppression of women. Ethnic cleansing. And the destruction of religious artifacts within Afghanistan's borders.
All more reasons not to allow the Taliban to re-take power in Afghanistan, but I'm fairly certain that someone as evidently pro-Taliban as yourself will never admit any of that.
I completely agree that the Taliban is a reprehensible regime -- but so are the alternatives.
ReplyDeleteAnd you can say what you will about opium in Afghanistan. The re-cultivation of opiates in Afghanistan actually presents an opportunity to the Afghan people -- they can re-invent their opium economy from the sale of illicit drugs to the sale of pharmaceuticals.
Nonsense. Pharmaceutical companies can source their legitimate needs from established sources. There is no national economy that can be built on this idea.
...they can re-invent their opium economy from the sale of illicit drugs to the sale of pharmaceuticals. The Taliban certainly could have done this as well, particularly with the help of the international community. Their destruction of opium crops actually only demonstrates their mismanagement of Afghanistan's economy, and is only another reason why they shouldn't be allowed to return to power.
Unbelievable! You are advocating a narco economy. The UK loses 30,000 people to drug use every year, most of it from Afghanistan. The UN is pleading for the opium fields to be shut down. 90% of the West's heroin comes from Afghanistan, is processed in Turkey (30% of their economy) and shipped to Europe through Kosovo, a deeply criminalized narco state backed by the US. The cultivation of Afghanistan's poppy fields maintain a GLOBAL industry of corrupt criminality from Kabul to London and Washington.
What's more, the US is quite happy with this arrangement. When the Clinton regime sought to bring corruption charges against former Speaker of the US House Dennis Hastert, it was based on FBI tapes of him taking bribes from Turkish drug traffickers!
Read Adrian Gatton's account of the UK drug industry and its Turkish connections. Or Sibel Edmonds talking about Turkey's deep state of military leaders and mafia tied to al Qaeda and the Afghan drug industry -- and their connections to US leaders through the American Turkish Council (ATC), a top level cultural and business group involved in drugs and arms trafficking.
You think all this drugs trafficking stuff is far removed from US politics? Think again. The same US officials who have been accepting bribes from Turkish drug interests have been selling nuclear materials and technology to those same people - people connected to al Qaeda! All of this built on the Afghan drug industry. Feel any safer? Do you understand why I claim that the upper echelons of the US political leadership, notably the Republican Party, are deeply criminalized?
The problem in Afghanistan is that there are insufficient Western forces. Accordingly, an unpalatable political solution will eventuate. Dreams of "victory" are just that.
If anyone wants to know how the Afghan drug trade has influenced US policy they really need to read this.
ReplyDeleteI liked your post "Liberals Still Out to Lunch on Afghanistan"
ReplyDelete--totally agree--
"I completely agree that the Taliban is a reprehensible regime -- but so are the alternatives."
ReplyDeleteThat is almost an arguable point. But one has to remember that healthy, stable democracies are not born over night. There's no magic wand that can be woven in Afghanistan that can magically force democratic instutitions to appear. They have to be developed, and they have to work for Afghan society.
This is a challenge all fledgling democracies face. We can help them, but we can't do this for them.
"Nonsense. Pharmaceutical companies can source their legitimate needs from established sources. There is no national economy that can be built on this idea."
Increasing global population means increasing demand for medical services, which means increasing demand for medicine.
Phamaceuticals will be a key part of the Afghan economy.
"Unbelievable! You are advocating a narco economy. The UK loses 30,000 people to drug use every year, most of it from Afghanistan. The UN is pleading for the opium fields to be shut down. 90% of the West's heroin comes from Afghanistan, is processed in Turkey (30% of their economy) and shipped to Europe through Kosovo, a deeply criminalized narco state backed by the US. The cultivation of Afghanistan's poppy fields maintain a GLOBAL industry of corrupt criminality from Kabul to London and Washington."
No, I'm suggesting a pharmaceutical based economy. The economics of it are very simple: provide them with a legitimate use and legal market for their opium, and they won't need the drug lords any longer.
It's basic economics.
To top it all off, one has to remember that the UN and other international agencies were only allowed access to portions of Afghanistan that the Taliban approved.
The Taliban's alleged success in wiping out Opium production is widely known to be severely exaggerated.
As for all this other silliness you're spouting, I'm unconvinced. I've heard all these paranoid rantings before, and they've never stood up to scrutiny.
As for all this other silliness you're spouting, I'm unconvinced. I've heard all these paranoid rantings before, and they've never stood up to scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteOh, for God's sake! US whistle blower Sibel Edmonds has given lengthy evidence before US Congressional Committees with case file numbers and detailed, specific evidence. Two US Senators and the 9/11 Commission found her testimony and recollection of facts to be reliable, as did an FBI Inspector General’s office internal investigation. Here's what a US Justice Department official had to say:
"We found that many of Edmonds' core allegations relating to the [espionage allegation] were supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses other than Edmonds."
The Bush administration felt so threatened by her revelations that they declared her Congressional testimony to be a "state secret" and imposed a legal gag. According to legal experts, the level of secrecy and classification in her case is unprecedented in US history. Everything about her has been classified Top Secret: her place of birth, date of birth, mother tongue, languages spoken, university background, and previous employment. US Congressman have been ordered to remove any references to her from their websites.
Does that sound like "paranoid rantings" to you?
Because of the US government gag -- and given the gravity of the claims -- Ms Edmonds finally decided to breach the US state secrets gag and told key details of her story to the UK London Times. Just a month ago they ran a series (1 2 3) of articles on her claims.
She alleged that a "senior State Department" official participated, along with a network of moles at sensitive nuclear instillations and military bases, in the sale of nuclear secrets to American allies and enemies alike.
The official has subsequently been identified as Marc Grossman, a former US Ambassador to Turkey, and, at the time of the alleged disclosures, the #3 State Department official beneath Colin Powell and Richard Armitage.
Grossman, according to the Times' and Edmonds' allegations, even tipped off Turkish officials, as long ago as 2001, to the fact that Brewster Jennings - the company that employed Valerie Plame - was a CIA cover company. He was, in effect, seeking to derail CIA investigations into the illegal trafficking of WMDs!
These revelations have threatened the Bush administration. A mere two weeks (22 Jan 08) the Bush Administration quietly announced that the US President wants Congress to approve the sale of nuclear technology to Turkey. According to the accompanying White House press release:
The Agreement was signed on July 26, 2000, and President Clinton approved and authorized execution and made the determinations required by section 123 b. of the Act (Presidential Determination 2000 26, 65 FR 44403 (July 18, 2000)). However, immediately after signature, U.S. agencies received information that called into question the conclusions that had been drawn in the required NPAS and the original classified annex, specifically, information implicating Turkish private entities in certain activities directly relating to nuclear proliferation.
The "private entities" referred to are the America-Turkish Council(ATC) referred to earlier and other Turkish businesses involved in illegal nuclear weapons technology transfer.
The legislation also seeks to provide retrospective immunity to anyone involved in such illegal transfers ("paging Mr Grossman"). So there it is. Sibel Edmonds "paranoid rantings" have resulted in US legislation to indemnify people involved in propagating WMDs! How much proof do you need?!
And the US government wants to approve the sale of nuclear technology to a country with porous borders and a corrupt military leadership at the centre of the world's illegal drug industry with connections to al Qaeda and other terrorist producers of those drugs. That's a moral and intelligent policy, is it? Make you feel any safer?
It's also a matter of historical record that the Clinton regime sought to bring corruption charges against former Speaker of the US House Dennis Hastert for taking bribes from Turkish drug traffickers. The payments were allegedly made for Hastert's efforts to defeat US legislation condemning Turkey for the Armenian Genocide.The subpoenas were ready to go but were withdrawn by the incoming Bush administration. It's a fact, get used to it.
Adrian Gatton's reporting on the UK drug scene is equally well supported by UK government inquiries. The international drug trafficking industry is huge. The "Mr Bigs" of the Turkish drug industry are closely connected to the Turkish military. And the Kosovo connections are equally well documented.
"silliness"...."paranoid rantings"....
I'm a little disappointed that you appear to be unfamiliar with these important issues.
Hooo boy. What a bunch of hooey.
ReplyDeleteThe Americans were selling nuclear secrets to their enemies, she says. But where's the evidence?
What about these tapes she speaks of? Whatever happened to them? Hmmmmm?
It sounds like more half-baked conspiracy theories to me.
Why don't you just take out a full page ad and brag to the world that you don't actually know anything.
ReplyDeleteThe woman gave 3 hours of detailed testimony to the 911 Commission including case file numbers, reference to specific documents and FBI tapes, naming witnesses etc. She gave similar evidence to at least two other Congressional Committees including the US Senate Judicial Committee. The Heads of those committees found her evidence credible and publicly said so. But the US government is sitting on those tapes and documents, refusing to release them.
Ms Edmonds was employed by the FBI as a Turkish translator and her evidence was based on listening to thousands of hours of tapes as part of an official FBI counter terrorism exercise. High level US politicians, Turkish officials and others were on those tapes. Other witnesses corroborate her testimony. The reason none of the Congressional Committees want to pursue this matter is political. A few of the people on the tapes are Democrats (most of the politicians are Republicans under Bush). There are also strong US business interests, particularly defense industry, and diplomatic interests to consider. Nobody wants to upset US-Turkish relations.
In March 2006 PEN American Centre, "the world's oldest human rights organization and the oldest international literary organization", awarded Ms Edmonds received their 2006 First Amendment Award for courage in speaking out. She is head of the US Whistleblowers Association, a collection of US government employees who have taken principled stands -- usually at the cost of their careers -- to speak out on government abuses or coverups of one sort or another. It is hardly likely that they would allow a kook or fraud to lead them.
Do you think the London Times is going to run a series of articles on her claims based on nonsense?
Look, the matter is quite simple. Ms Edmonds has been shown repeatedly to have been telling the truth about what she found while working at the FBI. The fact that you know nothing about these issues says a lot about your political awareness. I mean, this is genuinely laughable. The media is not going to be able to publish the Bush administration's dirty linen now, are they, if the government is concealing it? Up till now I'd taken you to be a sincere, partially informed conservative. But this, this is embarrassing. If you really don't know anything then don't brag about it.
Where are the tapes? Where is the evidence?
ReplyDeleteSince I have already told you clearly twice, I am at a complete loss to understand why you would restate this question as some sort of "challenge" to what I have told you. For the third time...
ReplyDeleteThe FBI has these tapes. They formed part of an extended FBI program of counter terrorist surveillance. On the tapes are leading US and Turkish officials reportedly making agreements in regard to a range of criminal activities including bribery and the illegal transfer of US nuclear technology. Specific details regarding these tapes have been provided to various Congressional inquiries.
What part of that can't you understand?
The whistle blower, Ms Edmonds, is calling for an independent inquiry so that these tapes can be examined. Would you support that? Or do you insist that you will only consider the possibility of criminal behavior if you receive written confessions from the suspects?
When you are up to a serious political debate on real issues give me a yell.
..oh, and I notice you still don't know anything at all about this important topic. Perhaps you missed your calling and should be running a sports blog. Pathetic.
So then how is it that no outside source has ever managed to gain access to those tapes? According to you and Ms Edmonds, the FBI has them. Nobody else seems to have heard them.
ReplyDeleteIt's just an incredible tale. Incredible.