Obama ATTACKED AND INVADED PAKISTAN? When did that happen? When did he
even TALK ABOUT going to war with Pakistan?
Answers: He hasn't done any of that.
Have we been attacking terrorists who are IN Pakistan with drones?
Answer: Yes we have. That's not a war, kiddies.
Oops.
In a message dated 5/17/2010 5:31:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
What a curious, and sudden, _reversal_ (http://www.house.gov/pelosi/State
mentonIraq91202.html) : now we have Democrats claiming to have “inside”
information that justifies a war, whilst Republicans are skeptical. Well, not
so curious, really, since the Democrats now have a war of their own, the war
against Pakistan, to defend.
Obama’s Gulf of Tonkin
A war of their own: Democrats target Pakistan
by _Justin Raimondo_ (http://original.antiwar.com/author/justin/) , May 17,
2010
The claim by the US government that the Times Square would-be bomber,
_Faisal Shahzad_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Shahzad) , was “trained”
and “directed” by the Pakistani Taliban is looking more bogus by the
moment. _The latest_
(http://www.necn.com/05/14/10/Employer-Suspect-arrested-in-Maine-raid-...) :
one of at least
three people arrested in connection with the alleged “plot,” Mohammad Shafiq
Rahman, hadn’t seen Shahzad in years, and even admitted to his employer that
he knew the accused. One Larry Adlerstein, who had hired Rahman to do some
computer work for his art business, told reporters:
“Just a few days ago he had a conversation with Rahman about the attempted
bombing in New York City [in the course of which] his employee made a
surprising admission. ‘As a matter of fact’ [said Rahman] ]I know this guy
accused of trying to bomb Times Square. I haven’t seen him in 8 or 9 years but
I know him.’
“Adlerstein says Rahman described the suspected bomber, Faisal Shahzad as ‘
an undirected person….no political positions, just a drifter.’”
Rahman has been _arrested_
(http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineHeadlineNews/tabid/968/ctl/ViewItem/mid...) on
trumped-up
immigration charges, but ask yourself: if you were part of a terrorist plot,
and
had assisted someone already in custody, would you admit to knowing the
accused? This is just plain ordinary common sense: but that’s not what
inspires our intrepid G-men.
In an _attempt_
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gv0gQgNBrtPjYTx4Xu...) to
follow the money trail, and find – or invent –
a foreign link, US investigators have spread their net far and wide,
apparently including any individuals who ever had significant financial
dealings
with Shahzad over a ten year period. This has led, so far, to arrests – all
on immigration charges – in Brookline, and Watertown, _both in
Massachusetts_
(http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100516suspects_link...) ,
and one in Maine. There is no
information coming out of the immigration cops, since they aren’t
answerable to anyone – and refuse to even confirm the identities of those being
held. The authorities often use vague and constantly-shifting immigration laws,
easily violated by non-lawyers, to wring information out of green card
holders and non-citizens in general. No need to ship them off to Guantanamo,
or Bagram – just let _ICE_ (http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman260410.htm)
deal with them.
Yet as those who know the detainees are coming forward to present _a
fuller picture_
(http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/05/15/de...) , it
looks like there’s nothing at the
end of the money trail but the administration’s Taliban conspiracy theory
asserted as fact.
It took a Republican senator, _Kit Bond_
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTdeCWcpX_vafLRF2J...) , to
point out the obvious:
that US Attorney General Eric Holder is “playing games” – political games
– with the case. The senior Republican on the Senate intelligence
committee, Bonds averred that he has seen no convincing evidence “so far” of
Shahzad’s purported link to the Pakistani Taliban. Holder “is only interested
in looking tough on terrorism on TV, since he’s now told the intelligence
community to skirt the national security law and give only the details he
wants and when to Congress.” The administration is invoking “national security
” to shield what it knows about the alleged plot from Congress, while
_going on television_
(http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/09/holders-long-delayed-sunday-tal...)
announcing the “link” had been
established.
Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee,
_claims_ (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/13/gop.senator.times.square.probe/)
she has definitive evidence of the Taliban link, but refuses to debate the
matter with Bond “in public.” What a curious, and sudden, _reversal_
(http://www.house.gov/pelosi/StatementonIraq91202.html) : now we have Democrats
claiming to have “inside” information that justifies a war, whilst
Republicans are skeptical. Well, not so curious, really, since the Democrats
now
have a war of their own, the war against Pakistan, to defend.
This war, covert up until _a few months ago_
(http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-us-war-pakistan) , first reared its
head when Hillary Clinton
paid a _tempestuous visit_
(http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/11/01/hillarys-ill-will-tour/) to
Pakistan and directly accused her hosts of
sheltering Osama bin Laden. The resulting firestorm marked a new low in
US-Pakistani relations, and one has trouble believing it was merely a random
temper
tantrum on Hillary’s part. You’ll recall that during the presidential
campaign, Obama openly _declared his intention_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR200...) to
go into
Pakistan, given the chance to do so, and it’s entirely unsurprising he’s doing
just that.
First, however, his administration must come up with a rationale, and
apparently they’ve settled on the _pathetic_
(http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100506_Faisal_Shahzad_bought_fire...)
act of a demented “
_ lone wolf_
(http://www.newser.com/story/88110/gen-petraeus-times-square-bomber-ac...) ” –
as Gen. David Petraeus characterized Shahzad –
as being good enough for government work. In short, the Shahzad case is
Obama’s Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The parallels are striking, and instructive: in both cases, the government
constructed a completely made up story in order to pursue a preordained
path to war. Just as _there was no attack_
(http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M0fIthbvQC8J:sea...
sberg/e/9781429506953+site:search.barnesandnoble.com+Ellsberg+Sample+Chapter
&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) on any US ship in the Tonkin gulf, so there was
no attempted Taliban plot to blow up Times Square – just another American
nut who went _postal_
(http://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces-Columbine/dp/...) .
And this time, too, the
media is falling down on the job, refusing to question what increasingly looks
like a crude fabrication.
As for the Pakistanis, they too _believe_
(http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\12\story_12-5-2010_pg7_33)
Shahzad was a lone nut:
Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN, Hussain Haroon, described him as a “
misguided soul” who acted alone. While acknowledging Washington may have other
intelligence, in an interview with CBS News Haroon averred: “All I am saying
is that the evidence I have points in one direction that it does not have
the signature of the Taliban. This is not, and I repeat not, a Pakistan
terror threat.”
The ambassador went on to note Shahzad is not even a Pakistani citizen,
and he brought up Hillary’s accusation – _reiterated this month_
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7711099/Pakis...
ow-where-Osama-bin-Laden-hiding-Hillary-Clinton.html) – that his
government is hiding bin Laden. Haroon and the Pakistanis see the looming
threat of
direct and massive US intervention in Pakistan, and are doing everything
possible to stave it off. Yet the floating of this absurd conspiracy theory
is a clear signal that the Obama-ites are hell-bent on war.
The irony here is that, as Haroon reminded his American audience, Pakistan
has captured and handed over to the US more actual terrorists – i.e. top
al-Qaeda operatives – than _our own FBI_
(http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/FBI_documents_contradict_Sept._11_C...) , or
any other law
enforcement agency anywhere. This is how we thank them – by setting them up
for an invasion on bogus charges of “harboring” terrorists.
When it comes to reporting the Shahzad case, it’s incredible that the “
mainstream” media isn’t challenging the administration’s narrative. Although
maybe, given the media’s longstanding _infatuation_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnMevMJLdtE) with the President, this is just
a case of love
being blind.
As it turns out, Shahzad was fingered in a _leak to the media_
(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004355-503544.html) even before he
was
arrested. This has all the earmarks of a manufactured story, straight out of
the Bush administration’s neocon-written _play-book_
...
read more »
