From 911 To Bin Ladden To Iraq
Techniguy | Sept. 08, 2006
Techniguy.com | Techniguy's Newsletters
 
This Sunday and Monday evenings, ABC will be airing a two part "docudrama" called "The Path to 9/11" and the Democrats are beside themselves.  Members of the former Clinton Administration are so outraged that they have their lawyers writing letters to Disney Corp. CEO Robert A. Iger, demanding changes and deletions be made in the production or it be cancelled altogether. 
 
In a recent video clip, Bill Clinton looked absolutely horrified and scared to death of what might be revealed in this program.  Hillary Clinton appeared a little less rattled, but still visibly upset that the public might learn some new insights into the intelligence and national security failures of the Clinton administration that were intentionally omitted from the "911 Commission 'Cover-up' Report".  Oddly enough, complaints by the Clintons are all based on hearsay, rumor, and speculation about the film.  According to ABC, no one has yet seen the film as it is still being edited.  The complaints were based on previews of the upcoming program that the Clintons had only heard about. 
 
We know that much of the truth and most of the blame for 911 was covered up by the 911 Commission, especially where it involved the Clinton Administration's failures to collect and assess intelligence information, connect the dots, arrest known terrorists, and eliminate Osama bin Ladden from the terrorist scene when he had the chances to do so. 
 
ABC claims the production is based not only on the 911 Commission Report, but also on news sources and personal interviews with government officials.  That is what scares the hell out of the Clintons.  Most information critical of the Clintons, what there was of it in the report, has been suppressed by the media.  But now faced with possibly not only suppressed 911 Commission Report information being brought up, but insights from other sources as well, the Clintons are visibly worried and Mr. Clinton wants to be certain that only information released by the 911 Commission will be used in the film.  We've already seen that movie, no reason for ABC to repeat it.  What is Clinton so worried about?
 
This is a surprise that no one expected.  The Democrats have always had a symbiotic relationship with Hollywood and nobody on the left had any problems with the airing Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" during the 2004 campaign season.  Now the shoe is on the other foot and they are getting a taste of their own medicine.  Clinton cronies may have been able to control the 911 commission, but they can't control Disney owned ABC, or can they?
 
We should remember that when CBS planned to air their version of "The Reagans", there was so much outrage over the distortions of the characters in the film that the airing was cancelled, then later aired on Showtime.  Do the Clintons wield enough influence and power to force ABC to cancel the airing, or delete critical scenes in the film?  That's always a possibility but so far, ABC isn't showing the production to anyone and is sticking to their guns.  ABC says they want everyone to see the whole program first, then make up their minds.  They say the film is not political, just tries to get the facts out.  They also say that some scenes are dramatizations based on the information they have and may not accurately reflect the actual events in every detail. 
 
But now Fox News is reporting that the second segment of the miniseries on Monday, 9-11-06 scheduled for 9:00 pm EDT would conflict with a speech President Bush has planned for that time slot so the program may have to be rescheduled.  Let's hope they don't cave into the demands of the Clintons to edit out content or cancel the film.  At the same time, Let's hope that they can reschedule the program around the president's speech. 
 

 
Back again on the Democrats' "talking points" list now is the infamous August 6th, 2001 PDB Memo.  The "President's Daily Briefing" memo that had the flashy title "Bin Ladden Determined To Strike In US", was emphasized during the politicized 911 Commission hearings in an attempt by Democrats to show that President Bush had ignored CIA warnings about an eminent al Qaeda strike on the US.  This memo is now being brought up again in television debates but it's no more relevant now than it was during the 911 Commission hearings.  In spite of the catchy title, the memo contained no new or useful intelligence information and was nothing more than a rehash of suspicions already known with no specifics.  Just more useless information from the Clinton Intelligence Agency that Bush hadn't had time yet to replace and restructure. 
 
Democrats have been acting like the 911 Commission was infallible and that all of their recommendations should be followed to the letter by the Bush Administration as though they were a part of the Constitution.  We see them saying "Bush still hasn't implemented ALL of the Commission recommendations" as though it's a crime not to do so, or Bush isn't serious about protecting the country, or doesn't have the right to use his own discretion on what suggestions to accept and what to reject.  Had the 911 Commission been less partisan and less concerned with protecting the Clinton legacy, their report might have been more credible.  In spite of that, the Clinton legacy, in my view, is still one of immorality and corruption in the Whitehouse and responsibility for the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. 
 
It is because of recommendations of the 911 Commission that we have monstrosities like the Homeland Security Dept. which sucked up FEMA into it's bureaucracy rendering it almost useless.  Before the Patriot Act, we had walls between intelligence agencies so nothing could get done.  Now, since the 911 Commission Report, we have layer upon layer of bureaucracy so nothing can get done.  This became crystal clear last year during Hurricane Katrina and in it's aftermath.  Because of the 911 Commission recommendations, FEMAs mission had been changed to respond to terrorist attacks and had little provisions left for natural disasters, the purpose for which it was created.  Michael Brown tried to tell them the bureaucracy was the problem, but in their own self defense, the Senate commission made him the scapegoat and placed the blame on him.  God forbid huge bureaucracies and the people who created them should be held responsible for inefficiency. 
 

 
And now we get to Osama bin Ladden.  Why hasn't he been caught yet, we ask.  We've heard all the excuses; we can't find him; he's hiding in a cave on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border; he may be in Iran; we're trying our best to locate him, etc.  I have reached some conclusions about that which I cannot prove at this time, but which make more sense to me than anything I've heard from our government. 
 
Bin Ladden is not hiding in a cave in Afghanistan.  In fact he's not in Afghanistan at all.  He's in Northern Pakistan and most likely living in a palace or a very comfortable home.  More than that, our government probably knows approximately where he is.  The reason we can't get him is purely political, but also probably necessary at this time. 
 
The Musharraf government in Pakistan is and ally and helping us in the war on terror, but it's a fragile regime and could be overthrown.  60% of Pakistanis support Osama, that's probably more than support Musharraf.  Musharraf is in power because as the top General, he commands the army.  But the Pakistani Army isn't big or strong enough to control the warlords and their armies in northern Pakistan who are likely harboring and protecting Osama bin Ladden.  The Pakistani Army cannot even go into that territory without starting a war and loosing half of their troops.  The last time they tried, that is just what happened.
 
Musharraf has to be very careful to walk a thin line between helping the US in the war on terror, and keeping the peace within his own country.  There are plenty of Talliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan as well as terrorist training camps, as we've been hearing from captured terrorists, it's probably at the center of most terrorism in the world today, but we don't talk about it.  Our military forces are not allowed within Pakistani borders by an agreement we have with Musharraf.  In return, Musharraf gives us intelligence information on terrorist and planned terrorist attacks which we find very helpful in fighting the war on terror. 
 
On the other hand, Musharraf is also protecting A. Q. Kahn, the father of the Islamic nuclear bomb and international proliferater of nuclear bomb technology.  After his arrest in Pakistan, Musharraf granted him a full pardon and refuses to allow us to interrogate Kahn.  Musharraf claims he knew nothing about Kahn's activities but the bombs developed in Pakistan were done under authority of the Army of which Musharraf is the top general.  I'm not sure that Musharraf can be trusted at his word.  We already know that Iran and No. Korea have benefited from A. Q. Kahn's nuclear programs and materials.  An interrogation of Kahn might prove embarrassing to Musharraf but would reveal which other countries are benefiting from Kahn's nuclear weapons as well as added intel on Iran's nuclear program.  So President Musharraf is playing both sides of the fence and trying to stay in the middle to maintain the support of both sides.
 
So in a nutshell, Osama is being protected in Pakistan where he lives with millions of supporters and defenders who serve as his army.  The Pakistani Army can't go into that territory to get him, nor are they really motivated to as many of them are supporters of Osama.  US troops can't go in there because of a diplomatic agreement with the President of Pakistan.  Even an air attack is not permitted unless it can be done clandestinely and not involve Musharraf, but even that would be very risky and would have repercussion.  Osama has found sanctuary in Pakistan and there is nothing we can do about it at the present time but our government doesn't want to tell us that because it would require a lot of explaining to those who just don't get it and probably prompt them to open another investigation.
 
So why has the US agreed to such a policy with Pakistan which prevents us from capturing or killing Osama bin Ladden?  There is a reason and one that we have to give serious consideration to. Pakistan has the bomb.  Right now, that, or should I say "those" bombs are safely under control of the Musharraf government and protected from terrorist elements in the country.  But the Musharraf government could be overthrown with only the slightest provocation.  An attack on the headquarters of Osama bin Ladden in Pakistan could provide such provocation.  Should that happen and Musharraf were overthrown, Pakistan's nukes would then fall into the hands of al Qaeda and nothing would stop them from using them.  Therefore, Musharraf has to be appeased and his regime protected which in turn means our government keeps up the facade of pretending to look for bin Ladden while bin Ladden remains free and protected in Pakistan. 
 
It's really not that big a deal though, most terrorism we have today isn't coming from bin Ladden.  It's coming from splinter groups who share the al Qaeda ideology, they would still be there with or without bin Ladden.  All we have gotten from bin Ladden over the past five years are his laughable attacks by video and audio tape.  We don't see much from Osama himself, but I love it when that 6th century, bearded raghead, al Zawahiri, sits in front of a camera pointing his 80 year old finger at the United States warning us to behave.  He strikes me as a cross between Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd.  I have no idea what he's saying but the translations sound just like what the Democrats are saying. 
 
Capturing or killing bin Ladden wouldn't have any effect on international terrorism today, but it could result in terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons.  As long as Musharraf retains power in Pakistan, we have to play the game.  But if he ever gets overthrown, then bin Ladden is toast and Pakistan becomes a parking lot for India.  But for now, bin Ladden isn't worth the risk.  The war on terror doesn't end with the death of Bin Ladden, it's not about him anymore, nor is it about punishment for 911 as liberals seem to think.
 
What was it the Democrats are saying about how they would fight the War On Terror?  Oh yes, pull our troops out of Iraq, then devote all our military efforts to the capture of Osama bin Ladden.  Would they also be willing to deal with the consequences of violating the sovereign territory of Pakistan and our international agreement with it's president?  Would they be prepared to deal with the consequences of al Qaeda and the Talliban overthrowing the Musharraf government and taking control of a dozen nuclear weapons with missiles to match?  Or would they just do away with Musharraf and take over Pakistan altogether with another Iraq type war?  Their simple minded rhetoric shows a serious lack of understanding of US foreign policy and tactics.  Putting our national security in their hands would be a complete disaster, which brings us to Iraq.
 

 
I received the following email and it was suggested that I publish my response to it in my Newsletter so that others could benefit from it, so here it is:
"Can you explain to me exactly how the liberals are preventing the troops from fighting?  I have read and heard from various sources that Donald Rumsfield was the main strategist.  I heard on the news that Donald Rumsfield wanted to keep the troop levels down in the beginning when many people wanted to have more troops in the beginning then to withdraw them.  It was entirely Rumsfield that put the small amount of troops in the beginning which is now leading to escalating troop levels. Please give me the names and manner in which liberals are preventing the troops from fighting."
This is a two part question and is typical of the lack of information and understanding of many in our society.  Let's start with Rumsfeld first.  To begin with, the Secretary of Defense is not a military strategists or expert, he's an administrator.  It was not he who decided on strategies and troop strengths for the invasion, it was Gen. Tommy Franks and the Army Chiefs of Staff.  They made their recommendations and Rumsfeld approved it. 
 
The reason for the limited troop strength was this:  The mission was to remove Saddam's regime from power.  Along with the air campaign, that mission was accomplished by the time the troops reached Baghdad.  A larger force had been considered but Gen. Tommy Franks and his staff decided on a smaller force because they wanted to be seen by the Iraqi people as liberators, not occupiers.  That is exactly how they were seen by most peaceful Iraqis who were being oppressed by Saddam Hussein.
 
They went in with more than enough troops to do the job but some mistakes were made along the way.  To reach their objective quickly, they avoided engaging Iraqi forces as much as possible, leaving them behind, still alive and armed.  We didn't plan on the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard running away, taking off their uniforms, and later showing up as civilian insurgents. 
 
If you remember, our troops unexpectedly met with virtually no resistance in the Baghdad area where the heaviest fighting was expected.  Some say we should have anticipated this, maybe, maybe not.  In the Gulf War, Iraqi soldiers either stood their ground and fought to the death or surrendered without attempting to put up much of a fight.  That is what we expected them to do again.  The last thing anyone expected was for them to run away and hide among the civilians.
 
Although imprisoned and on trial, Saddam is still alive.  He should have been killed when they found him but then that wouldn't be nice, now would it.  No doubt many former Republican Guard and Saddam loyalists still have hopes of returning him to power if they can overthrow the newly elected government and so we have the insurgency in Iraq, and being aided by Muslims from other countries who hate America and Democracy.  Thus, the center of the War on Terror has concentrated now in Iraq. 
 
This is all new to us, it's never happened in any war we've ever fought before.  We've never had to engage in urban guerilla warfare before and we're still learning how to do it. I have a few suggestions:  Execute Saddam and much of this may die down as all insurgent hopes of returning him to power will be lost.  Sweep the Baghdad area and check everyone's ID.  If they're not an Iraqi citizen or have no legitimate reason for being there, get them out of the country or kill them.  This is no time for foreigners to be just visiting Iraq, and no time to be overly concerned with civilian casualties in neighborhoods infested with terrorists.  We are at war, remember? 
 
Things change daily on the ground and we have to change and adjust our strategy daily to keep up with it.  If we need to send in more troops to suppress the increasing insurgency, then that's what we have to do until the new Iraqi Army is well enough trained and able to handle it without our help.  More troops are needed right now because they have decided to step up the raids in Baghdad and start cleaning up the Suni triangle of terrorists and insurgents the way they did in Fallujah last year.  Eventually the Iraqi security forces will be able to deal with it all themselves but that will take time.  Until then, they need our help and have asked us to stay. 
 
On the second question; how are the liberals preventing the troops from fighting, this is being done politically.  By imposing rules, regulations, and limits in Congress on how the troops fight, they are being prevented from fighting to win.  Even though Congress has a Republican majority, don't think the liberals aren't being heard and getting what they want in the same way that a spoiled child does.  Everything that comes out of Congress is a compromise or it doesn't get passed at all.  Even the minority has tools to block legislation if it doesn't suit them.  They all vote as a block and occasionally get enough Republicans (rinos) to vote with them in exchange for votes on other legislation or back room deals to push their legislation through.  In other cases, Republicans will just give in to them so as not to hurt the feeling of their "good friends" on the other side of the isle. 
 
You want names?  How about Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durban, Barbara Boxer, John Murtha, John McCain, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, and Dennis Kucinich for starters?  These people care more about fighting a "politically correct" war than winning.  In fact, many of them don't believe in fighting a war at all, at any cost including our freedom and way of life, and the sovereignty of our country.  To them, it's not who wins or looses that counts, but how you play the game, the same ideology they now apply to school children.  They have lost the capacity to appreciate competition and victory which is an unacceptable disaster for America when it is applied to war as we see being done now.   
 
They want investigations every time a civilian is killed by a US soldier in Iraq or a terrorist is spied on in the US.  They want comfort and protection for evil and brutal terrorists at Gitmo.  Now they have scrutinized and publicized not only our terrorist surveillance techniques making it harder to spy on terrorists, but have done the same with interrogation techniques at Gitmo so that prisoners there no longer have anything to fear if they choose not to talk to interrogators.  Liberals believe that avoiding civilian casualties in a war, and how will it look to European socialists, should trump fighting to win.  
 
In Iraq, soldiers are restrained from aggressively going after insurgents for fear of killing a few innocent civilians, who, for all they know, could very well be terrorists and insurgents.  If they kill the wrong person, they risk being put on trial and having to defend their actions and their lives in court because the liberals insist on it.  That means they have to think twice before pulling the trigger and that may cost them their lives if the other guy pulls the trigger or blows himself up first.  Our soldiers have to be careful not to fight too hard and risk their lives by giving insurgents the benefit of the doubt until they threaten to shoot, then hope they can shoot faster. 
 
To win a war, an army has to be aggressive and brutal.  Liberals in Congress won't allow them to do that.  Antiwar liberals in the UN and elsewhere are making it almost impossible for the administration to confront our enemies before they attack us.  They expect us to "fight fair", don't shoot until shot at, and observe Geneva Convention rules while our enemy is not a member of the Geneva Convention, is not protected by it's definitions, and observes no rules at all.  They study our rules, see them a weakness, and find ways to use them against us.  It's like diplomats doing battle with an MS-13 street gang.  Our troops are trained to be the best soldiers in the world, not diplomats, but now they find themselves playing both roles to the benefit of the enemy and those who bow to "world opinion".
 
Those are just a few of the ways liberals are preventing our troops from fighting and fighting to win.  It all comes down to fighting a politically correct war, and a politically correct war cannot be won because the enemy will see it as weakness, turn your rules against you and use them to defeat you.  The only way to fight and win against Islamic terrorism is to be more brutal and aggressive than the enemy.  The only way to win any war is to break the will of the enemy to fight and make them fear you.  You have to convince them that fighting is useless, hopeless, and fruitless and that they cannot win.  This is what is missing from our current war and we will not win until it is restored. 
 
Our Democrats have been doing just the opposite in trying to break the will of Americans to fight and giving the enemy hope that they might win if they just hold out until Democrats are in power.  As long as they continue to do this, the enemy will continue to fight, kill, and attack Americans in their attempt to break our will.  It didn't take them long to defeat the American Left so now we fight with our left hand tied behind our backs.  Isn't it enough that America has to fight a war against Islamic terrorism?  Must we also have to fight a war against American Liberals at the same time?  Would it really hurt them so much to support their own country for a change and try to show the enemy a united American homefront?  It would make a world of difference in ending this war sooner, and in victory for the United States. 
Site Meter
 
Techniguy’s Newsletters
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe go to:
http://www.techniguy.com/Newsletters
PLEASE NOTE: Email addresses used for this newsletter are not authorized for use in group mailing lists from your address book under any circumstances. Thank you for your cooperation. You are welcome to post Techniguy's Newsletters to groups ,blogs, and forward them to others on your mailing list.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
http://www.techniguy.com