US Politics?

[RichPundit]

WOW, just saw George Stephan... reluctantly claim on GMA that the "ultimate dream ticket" is Obama/Hillary! Seems that he also expected it to happen, and soon.

In the context of seeing Obama recently smoothly citing noble Presidential historian Doris's great book "Team of Rivals" about Lincoln working hard to assemble his senior adminstration officials with his key "Rivals" and how well that worked, plus Obama's frequent kind characterizationS of Hillary, seems to me that an Obama/Hillary ticket and the resulting earned Republican 2008 election disaster is imminent. I fully support!

Surprised me since I follow ex-Clintonite senior staffer George regularly, and thought he was actually purposefully slightly pendulum swinging against Hillary, most likely imho, to build his perceived independence and thus further his lucrative career.

Namaste - RichPundit

btw, also read in yesterday's USAToday while enjoying my poached eggs and french toast at our local Golden Basket diner with my Puppy sleeping in my Honda, that the recent screaming of the fewest Iraqi attacks against our US military is the direct result of the 2-week old, 3 mile, 12 foot high wall (!) we built in Sadr City in Baghdad. However, it has devasted the commerce in the part of Baghdad that we want to support and flourish, and thus is unsustainable ... except perhaps until the end of the Bush administration. Our alllied merchants are overtly saying that supporting anti-US forces may make the most sense for them, plus the Iraqi government is clearly partnering more with their Shiite Iranian relatives and senior government/military officals frequently visit each other's capital. Despicable Idiots!!!

[Gartism]

The Middle East won't settle down until either A) it becomes a big parking lot for "Persia Disney", B) oil is completely replaced as a resource or C) Muhammed, Moses and Jesus finally reveal themselves as Moe, Larry & Curly.

[RichPundit]

Originally Posted by RichPundit

WOW TTSers, read in an Aruba Lite newspaper that there is a recent video on the Net showing McCain outrageously, laughingly singing at one of his rallies: "Bomb Bomb Bomb ... Bomb Bomb Iran" to the Beach Boy's tune of "Barbara Ann"!!!

As I previously posted, no doubt that the Neocon Nuts that even most Republicans reject, continue to overtly scream that we need to bomb Iran NOW. In fact, The Wall Street Journal's website has keep posted for months, a loong "defense" of this idiot strategy written by Neocon "Intellectual" nut John Podhoretz (Bad Dad Norman). John honestly concedes that for several reasons, bombing Iran now would result in a lengthy, "global catastrophic" economic/political disaster, but that that was easily worth it! WTF???
Miss my Puppy - RichPundit

Incredible that both a few American Patriots including McCain and reckless Israel still rabidly want to bomb Iran ... Idiots! Albeit fortunately for everyone, not our "Realist" Defense Secretary Gates and State Secretary Rice.

Obama should keep Defense Secretary Gates, if possible - RichPundit

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Last update - 09:35 28/07/2008 Pentagon chief: War with Iran would be 'disastrous' By Amir Oren, Haaretz Correspondent A war with Iran would be "disastrous on a number of levels," according to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In an article appearing in the latest issue of Parameters, the U.S. Army War College quarterly, Gates wrote that with the army already bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, "another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need" - despite the fact that Iran "supports terrorism," is "a destabilizing force throughout the Middle East and Southwest Asia and, in my judgment, is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." Nevertheless, he continued, "the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat, either directly or through nuclear proliferation." Gates offered these remarks on Iran as commentary on how to apply an axiom uttered by General Fox Connor in the early 20th century: "Never fight unless you have to." But this is not the first time he has warned against war with Iran; he also did so in a speech at West Point, the U.S. military academy, three months ago. The current article is based on that speech. Any statement by Gates bears special importance because Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential hopeful who generally opposes the current administration's foreign and defense policy, has praised Gates lavishly and even hinted that he might ask him to retain his post under an Obama presidency. Meanwhile, in another document bearing his signature that is due to be published soon, the 2008 National Defense Strategy, Gates omits Israel from the list of the United States' main allies. The National Defense Strategy is an official document that reflects the secretary's directives to the armed forces. It replaces the version issued in 2005 by Gates' predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld. Although Gates signed off on the document about a month ago, it has yet to be published officially; however, a copy appears on the Inside Defense Web site. In this document, too, Gates wrote that Iran's support for terror, efforts to undermine the nascent democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan and pursuit of nuclear weapons constitute a serious challenge to the security of the region ¬ one that U.S. policy must address. However, he also used the document to discuss America's allies. "Our closest allies - the U.K., Australia, and Canada. Other long standing alliances NATO, Japan and South Korea foremost among them. We will work to expand and strengthen other relationships, including with India," the document states. But Israel, which has been listed in other documents as an important U.S. ally, does not appear in this document at all. The possibility that Gates might retain his post should Obama win the presidency in November emerged from an interview that the Democratic candidate gave to Defense News earlier this month. "Secretary Gates has brought a level of realism and professionalism and planning to the job that is worthy of praise," the publication quoted Obama as saying. "But whether that means he would continue in that position, or would even want to, I think that's something that will be determined later. I don't want to get too far ahead of myself." Related articles: Report: Ex-Mossad chief says strike on Iran could 'affect us for 100 years' Iran convoy attacked reportedly while taking arms to Hezbollah Obama to PM: Iran action legitimate only if talks fail

/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=1005910

close window

---

Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

[RichPundit]

PMO!!!

Sorry to inundate you with my political rantings, but this is incredibly Outrageous and Despicable!!!

Crazy Neocon Bret Stephens is now claiming the Iraq war won citing winning a 2003 $100 bet with another crazy Neocon! More outrageous to me is that these idiots have become and continue to obscenely enrich themselves based on their obviously wrong and destructive rantings ... AND, much of their personal wealth is taxpayer financed via lobbies, industry, and governments, particularly foreign, to support their narrow interests.

btw, Bret continues to loudly scream that we should bomb Iran now, while overtly acknowledging the likely resulting global economic winter ["worth it"], as a follow-up to his looong time attack/occupy Iraq screams pre-2003 ... PMO!!!

Namaste - rich

	August 5, 2008

GLOBAL VIEW By BRET STEPHENS

My Bet With Francis Fukuyama August 5, 2008; Page A17 No matter what happens in November, the war in Iraq will not be brought to an end by either Barack Obama or John McCain. The war in Iraq is over. We've won. Exhibit A for my claim: Francis Fukuyama has agreed to write me a check for $100. In March 2006, I wrote a blistering review of "America at the Crossroads," Mr. Fukuyama's sensational repudiation both of the war in Iraq as well as the neoconservative movement of which he was once a leading light. The book was widely praised. I called its arguments weak, its policy prescriptions weaker, and its manner disingenuous, since Mr. Fukuyama -- an early advocate of regime change in Iraq who claimed to have changed his mind several months before the war began -- had given no unequivocal indication of his opposition when his views might have made a real difference. There followed between us an exchange of emails, in which Mr. Fukuyama pointed to various pieces he had published prior to the war indicating some concerns about how the U.S. would go in, and some foreboding about what might follow. He also mentioned a $100 bet he had made in May 2003 with a friend -- a supporter of the war -- that Iraq would be a mess five years after the invasion, the definition of a mess being "you'd know one if you saw it." We agreed to make the same bet. I nearly forgot about the bet until last Friday, when the Washington Post reported U.S. combat fatalities in Iraq for the month of July. The total came to five. Six other soldiers were killed in noncombat situations. The rate of combat fatalities may again inch higher. For all the progress made in the last year, Iraq remains a dangerous (if no longer terrifying) place. But to speak of Iraq as a "war" no longer accurately characterizes the nature of the situation: For purposes of comparison, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam in 1971, when America's involvement was winding down and U.S. troop levels stood roughly where they are today in Iraq, averaged 115 a month. Speaking of "war" also confuses our understanding of what the U.S. should do next. Put simply, and pace Barack Obama, "getting out of Iraq" and "ending the war" are no longer synonymous. With this in mind, I wrote Mr. Fukuyama to suggest that he owed me $100. He conceded, albeit strictly on "the narrow terms" of the bet itself. Mr. Fukuyama insists, however, that he has been vindicated on the broader issue: "We've spent a trillion or so dollars, 30,000 dead or wounded, a large loss in international influence and prestige, all for the sake of disarming a country with no WMDs." He adds that "my concern right from the beginning was that the war wouldn't be worth the effort it would require, and that the American people don't have a good record in supporting long, costly struggles in developing countries." And he asks for "public recognition" that he was no latecomer to opposing the war. I'll grant that Mr. Fukuyama had decided the war was a mistake -- if only in a whisper -- before it was begun. Where does that leave us now? Perhaps it's worth considering what we have gained now that Iraq looks like a winner. Here's a partial list: Saddam is dead. Had he remained in power, we would likely still believe he had WMD. He would have been sitting on an oil bonanza priced at $140 a barrel. He would almost certainly have broken free from an already crumbling sanctions regime. The U.S. would be faced with not one, but two, major adversaries in the Persian Gulf. Iraqis would be living under a regime that, in an average year, was at least as murderous as the sectarian violence that followed its collapse. And the U.S. would have seemed powerless to shape events. Instead, we now have a government that does not threaten its neighbors, does not sponsor terrorism, and is unlikely to again seek WMD. We have a democratic government, a first for the Arab world, and one that is increasingly capable of defending its people and asserting its interests. We have a defeat for al Qaeda. Critics carp that had there been no invasion, there never would have been al Qaeda in Iraq. Maybe. As it is, thousands of jihadists are dead, al Qaeda has been defeated on its self-declared "central battlefield," and the movement is largely discredited on the Arab street and even within Islamist circles. We also have -- if still only prospectively -- an Arab bulwark against Iran's encroachments in the region. But that depends on whether we simply withdraw from Iraq, or join it in a lasting security partnership. None of these are achievements to sneer at, all the more so because they were won through so much sacrifice. Mr. Fukuyama has now granted the "narrow" point of our bet in the form of a personal check. Here's betting him $100 back that he will come around to conceding the broader case for the war in Iraq -- shall we say, on the 10th anniversary of its liberation? Write to bstephens@wsj.com3 See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal4. And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum5. URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789262234511729.html Hyperlinks in this Article: (1) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114202514018795111.html (2) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789606140212035.html (3) mailto: bstephens@wsj.com (4) http://online.wsj.com/opinion (5) http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php? t=3570

[tailhook]

Originally Posted by RichPundit

PMO!!!

Just offhand.. huh? That means what?

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Crazy Neocon Bret Stephens is now claiming the Iraq war won citing winning a 2003 $100 bet with another crazy Neocon!

Interesting.

Originally Posted by RichPundit

More outrageous to me is that these idiots have become and continue to obscenely enrich themselves based on their obviously wrong and destructive rantings ... AND, much of their personal wealth is taxpayer financed via lobbies, industry, and governments, particularly foreign, to support their narrow interests.

And.. PIVOT! So.. you didn't go after Stephens concerning whether we won the war or not, instead you pivot and go on a money rant? Does this mean you also believe we won the war?

The Democrats have to be freaking out really. It could actually be that we have in fact won the war with control being transitioned over the next year along with more troop withdrawls and what not and it had the indency to happen before a Democrat could get installed in the White House that could take credit for it. Nancy is going to have to push through an emergency resolution before the election releasing Gitmo prisoners into the custody of Al-Quada in Iraq.

Unless of course saving the planet from those darned Homo Sapiens comes first.
Here's what the late, great George Carlin had to say about saving the planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948Nm34arfA

Originally Posted by RichPundit

btw, Bret continues to loudly scream that we should bomb Iran now, while overtly acknowledging the likely resulting global economic winter ["worth it"], as a follow-up to his looong time attack/occupy Iraq screams pre-2003 ... PMO!!!

Pivot again.. and off to a subject that isnt even covered in the article posted.

-TH

[RichPundit]

Originally Posted by tailhook

Just offhand.. huh? That means what?
Interesting.
And.. PIVOT! So.. you didn't go after Stephens concerning whether we won the war or not, instead you pivot and go on a money rant? Does this mean you also believe we won the war?
The Democrats have to be freaking out really. It could actually be that we have in fact won the war with control being transitioned over the next year along with more troop withdrawls and what not and it had the indency to happen before a Democrat could get installed in the White House that could take credit for it. Nancy is going to have to push through an emergency resolution before the election releasing Gitmo prisoners into the custody of Al-Quada in Iraq.
Unless of course saving the planet from those darned Homo Sapiens comes first.
Here's what the late, great George Carlin had to say about saving the planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948Nm34arfA
Pivot again.. and off to a subject that isnt even covered in the article posted.

-TH

"Well ... there you go again" TailHook!

fyi, PMO = Pissed Me Off

Trust you're not serious ... you actually believe that we have won in Iraq?

Isn't it curious to you why neither the Bush Administration, particularly Bush or the Secretaries of Defense Gates and State Rice, or McCain don't scream victory in Iraq??? Why isn't Bush et al campaigning for McCain and his party, particularly on the looong Republican record? If we won, what a great campaign issue of competent government ... NOT!!!

Also, even Bret cites his Neocon friend's list of reasons for why Iraq is a disaster for the U.S. [and world], and Bret's rationales for victory are tenuous at best ... one of the most glaring being that Iraq was the #1 enemy of everyone's agreed worse middle east threat: Iran, plus the Iraq government that we prop-up is a close ally of Iran. Iraq has both demonstrated and continue to overtly declare their intention to link with Iran even more closely. Victory? Saddam was Sunni as is most of the middle east including Saudi Arabia with the critical exception of Shiite Iran ... ATTENTION: our US paid Iraqi government is also uniquely Shiite.

Also, isn't it common sense that Bush et al motivated Iran to desperately and rabidly seek nuclear weapons? We attacked and continue to militarily occupy both Iran's eastern and western borders, maintain military fleets and bases nearby, plus enable Israel to behave similarly nearby in Lebannon, Syria, and Palestine ... what would you do for survival if you were Iran?

Furthermore, do you want to discuss our disasterous strategic impact on Al Qaida and Pakistan? Lot's of disturbing data including enabling Pakistan to be the world's largest purchaser of military hardware, most funded and supplied by us!?!! The Republicans have been snookered by everyone, and we'll all pay their bill including funding our competitor's infrastructure, military, and technology ... not smart, TOTAL INCOMPETENCE on this and every other issue! Please share any successes in the past 8 years that you perceive. Republicans have screwed up everything possible since dominating our government with their bogus "Contract with America" beginning in 2000.

Didn't think I needed to list the obvious ... AND, as I hope you know, there is much more!

Whew, I apologize for my vent TailHook, but sense that you relish.

Namaste - RichPundit

[tailhook]

Originally Posted by RichPundit

"Well ... there you go again" TailHook!

fyi, PMO = Pissed Me Off

K.

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Trust you're not serious ... you actually believe that we have won in Iraq?

Winning in Iraq is entirely dependent upon whether we can successfully transition the security of Iraq to the civilian government so that we can withdraw troops on a permanant basis. If we can.. then yes, we've won and I hope to god Americans dance in Times Square if/when it happens as it will have been a hard fought victory with lots of casualties. Until that point, any declaration of victory OR defeat would be premature. And at this point, its certainly winnable given the criteria I just detailed.

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Isn't it curious to you why neither the Bush Administration, particularly Bush or the Secretaries of Defense Gates and State Rice, or McCain don't scream victory in Iraq???

Not really... no. See above.

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Why isn't Bush et al campaigning for McCain and his party, particularly on the looong Republican record? If we won, what a great campaign issue of competent government ... NOT!!!

For the same reasons Al Gore didn't want Clinton campeigning for him back in 2000.

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Also, isn't it common sense that Bush et al motivated Iran to desperately and rabidly seek nuclear weapons?

You act like Iran hasn't pursued them before and wouldn't have again.. had we just not desposed the government in Iraq. I get the feeling the nuke issue with Iran is a whole lot of dipomatic strategery.

Originally Posted by RichPundit

We attacked and continue to militarily occupy both Iran's eastern and western borders, maintain military fleets and bases nearby, plus enable Israel to behave similarly nearby in Lebannon, Syria, and Palestine ... what would you do for survival if you were Iran?

Going after the nuclear option for them was never about survival. It is about bargaining chips.

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Furthermore, do you want to discuss our disasterous strategic impact on Al Qaida and Pakistan?

You mean the impact of Al Quada hitting the floor? At the moment they are a shell of their former capabilites and a lot of the original hardline fighters that had tactical training through a decade of war with the Soviet Union are now dead. People can be replaced pretty easily, but the tactical and technical skills are learned over time.

What Iraq ended up doing was draw a spread out enemy into a common battleground where they could be ground down.

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Lot's of disturbing data including enabling Pakistan to be the world's largest purchaser of military hardware, most funded and supplied by us!?!!

You are kidding right? Just forgetting the fact that *we* are the world's largest purchaser of military hardware... there are quite a few countries you'd have to go through to get to Pakistan.

Originally Posted by RichPundit

The Republicans have been snookered by everyone, and we'll all pay their bill including funding our competitor's infrastructure, military, and technology ... not smart, TOTAL INCOMPETENCE on this and every other issue!

That is all dependent upon whether we win or not. If we do then the worm turns and every slack-jawed liberal from one coast to the other is completely discredited concerning the war.

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Please share any successes in the past 8 years that you perceive.

We've allready been down this path before and a lot of it is contingent on what comes next. Victory in Iraq turns the talking points of every Bush critic upside down.

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Republicans have screwed up everything possible since dominating our government with their bogus "Contract with America" beginning in 2000.

1994.

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Whew, I apologize for my vent TailHook, but sense that you relish.

Its been a while since we've had a good back and forth. We should do it more often.

-TH

[RichPundit]

Originally Posted by tailhook

Sorry for my delayed response TailHook, but needed to prepare for a job interview and approve my first Journal article proof, and of course, enjoy our fun Olympics!




However importantly first, Russia militarily attacking and occupying Georgia while both Putin and Bush casually attend the Olympics in Beijing is further clear evidence, if we needed any, of the loong-time, disasterous, failed Republican global diplomatic, security, and economic strategies ... it is a very big deal!!! Post-Bush et al, the US has little real projectable power or influemce.

"Winning in Iraq is entirely dependent upon whether we can successfully transition the security of Iraq to the civilian government so that we can withdraw troops on a permanant basis. If we can.. then yes, we've won and I hope to god Americans dance in Times Square if/when it happens as it will have been a hard fought victory with lots of casualties. Until that point, any declaration of victory OR defeat would be premature. And at this point, its certainly winnable given the criteria I just detailed."

SOooo you agree with me and even Bush et al, and disagree with WSJ's Bret Stephens: we have NOT won in Iraq, plus winning is not guaranteed. However, I don't agree with your narrow definition of winning. It is likely, based on simple known alliances, behaviours, and statements as I previously posted, that the "winning" Iraq government will become partners with everyone's bad nation: Iran ... this is far from winning, and would be a disaster for the Middle East and entire globe. Thank you Bush et al.

"For the same reasons Al Gore didn't want Clinton campeigning for him back in 2000."

Huh? Intern sex does not equate with failure on every issue ... Republicans would love to have the economic, military power, financial, and global alliances that the Democrats created and sustained after their loong rule.

"You act like Iran hasn't pursued them before and wouldn't have again.. had we just not desposed the government in Iraq. I get the feeling the nuke issue with Iran is a whole lot of dipomatic strategery. Going after the nuclear option for them was never about survival. It is about bargaining chips."

Iran's centuries-long, historical record is non-aggressive. However again, if Superpower US refuses to talk with you, and a US-enabled nuclear neighbor (Israel) repeatedly militarily attacks and occupies nearby peoples (e.g., Lebannon, Syria, Palestine), and the US militarily attacks and occupies the countries on both your eastern (Afghanistan) and western (Iraq) borders, plus the US bases large military forces including aircraft and carrier groups nearby ... what would you do if you were Iran? If I keep punching you in the face and actively isolate you, what would be your rationale response?

"You are kidding right? Just forgetting the fact that *we* are the world's largest purchaser of military hardware... there are quite a few countries you'd have to go through to get to Pakistan."

It is accepted by all and documented in Jane's that in 2007, Pakistan purchased the most military hardware from other nations in the world, and the US was the largest supplier to Pakistan. We now plan to give them F-16's for use against India, not Pakistani-based Al Qaeda.

"That is all dependent upon whether we win or not. If we do then the worm turns and every slack-jawed liberal from one coast to the other is completely discredited concerning the war. ... We've allready been down this path before and a lot of it is contingent on what comes next. Victory in Iraq turns the talking points of every Bush critic upside down."

And if we lose (see above) or "win", guess the Neocon Republicans will continue to scream to Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran ... idiots.

"Its been a while since we've had a good back and forth. We should do it more often."

Absolutely, but keeping it objective, not personal.

-TH

Also importantly, focusing solely on Iraq is disingenuous. Our failed policies in Pakistan, Iran, Lebannon, Eqypt, Syria, and elsewhere are directly related to our HUGE problems, and cumulatively bad for everyone globally.

Namaste - RichPundit

[RichPundit]

Originally Posted by tailhook

K.

Originally Posted by tailhook

"You mean the impact of Al Quada hitting the floor? At the moment they are a shell of their former capabilites and a lot of the original hardline fighters that had tactical training through a decade of war with the Soviet Union are now dead. People can be replaced pretty easily, but the tactical and technical skills are learned over time.

What Iraq ended up doing was draw a spread out enemy into a common battleground where they could be ground down."

Its been a while since we've had a good back and forth. We should do it more often. -TH

... adding to my previous post, here are some Al Qaeda truths as recently reported by senior Bush Intelligence Analysts.

AND, there is much more on every issue!

Namaste - RichPundit

[btw, forgot to previously mention that one of Neocon nut Bret Stephen's items on his very short list of what we won from militarily attacking/occupying Iraq, is that we prevented the riches Saddam Hussein would have earned from $140/barrel oil. Of course Bret fails to mention the $30/barrel price of oil b4 we attacked and occupied Iraq, as well as the failed promise to fund our chosen war with Iraqi oil wealth.]

---

August 13, 2008


U.S. Analyst Depicts Al Qaeda as Secure in Pakistan and More Potent Than Last Year

By MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda’s success in forging close ties to Pakistani militant groups has given it an increasingly secure haven in the mountainous tribal areas of Pakistan, the American government’s senior terrorism analyst said Tuesday.
Al Qaeda is more capable of attacking inside the United States than it was last year, and its cadre of senior leaders has recruited and trained “dozens” of militants capable of blending into Western society to carry out attacks, the analyst said.
The remarks Tuesday by the intelligence analyst, Ted Gistaro, were the most comprehensive assessment of the Qaeda threat by an American official since the National Intelligence Estimate issued last summer, which concluded that Al Qaeda had largely rebuilt its haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
A year later, Mr. Gistaro said, the problem has only grown worse, in part because of a symbiotic relationship between Qaeda operatives and Pakistani militant groups based in the tribal areas.
“It is a stronger, more comfortable safe haven than it was for them a year ago,” said Mr. Gistaro, who supervises all intelligence reports on terrorism at the National Intelligence Council. He made his remarks in a speech here to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Al Qaeda’s growing strength inside Pakistan has in recent months prompted new discussions in the Bush administration about using special-operations troops for raids in the tribal areas — an option the White House has long resisted because of the risks.
There is also a growing recognition among senior officials that the Bush administration for years did not take the Qaeda threat in Pakistan seriously enough and relied on President Pervez Musharraf to dismantle networks of militants there.
Mr. Musharraf was in control of Pakistan’s army and intelligence services until elections in February put a civilian government led by his opponents in charge in Islamabad.
Last year, senior Bush administration officials said much of Al Qaeda’s resurgence was made possible by a disastrous cease-fire that Mr. Musharraf brokered with tribal leaders in September 2006.
Yet the grim intelligence assessment Mr. Gistaro presented on Tuesday indicated that American spy agencies believed that the Qaeda threat metastasized long after that cease-fire ended.
In the past several days, militants have forced Pakistani troops to beat a hasty retreat from a Taliban stronghold in the tribal areas. Pakistani forces had tried to recapture a strategic military post in Bajaur, an area where Al Qaeda has forged particularly close ties with local militants.
American military and intelligence officials believe that Pakistani militant networks are engaged in an increasingly violent campaign inside Afghanistan, attacking American and coalition troops as well as civilian targets like the Indian Embassy in Kabul, which a suicide bomber attacked last month.
American spy agencies have also concluded that officers in Pakistan’s powerful Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, which has long maintained ties to militants in the tribal areas, helped carry out the embassy bombing.
Mr. Gistaro did not address the ISI’s relationship with Pakistani militants.
He did, however, cite a number of senior Qaeda leaders who had been killed in recent months as evidence of progress in the American-led campaign against Osama bin Laden’s network.
Last month, American officials said a missile fired from a Predator drone operated by the Central Intelligence Agency had killed Abu Khabab al-Masri, an Egyptian explosives expert who was operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
At the same time, Mr. Gistaro said that Al Qaeda had “replenished its bench” with a more diverse group of operatives, many from North Africa and the Levant, as opposed to the cadre of Egyptians and Saudis who have historically dominated the group’s upper ranks.
Mr. Gistaro said that Al Qaeda had trained several dozen operatives in Pakistani camps who would be capable of attacks against Western targets; but he said that American intelligence agencies were not aware of any “specific, credible plots” to attack inside the United States.
With the election and inauguration of a new president coming up, Mr. Gistaro said, intelligence officials expect a surge in threat reporting about possible domestic attacks.
Any Qaeda attack timed to the election would be aimed at wreaking havoc, rather than influencing the balloting in a particular direction, he said.
“There is no intelligence that suggests to me that Al Qaeda has a preferred candidate in our upcoming election,” Mr. Gistaro said.

[RichPundit]

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Sorry to inundate you with my political rantings, but this is incredibly Outrageous and Despicable!!!

Crazy Neocon Bret Stephens is now claiming the Iraq war won citing winning a 2003 $100 bet with another crazy Neocon! ...
btw, Bret continues to loudly scream that we should bomb Iran now, while overtly acknowledging the likely resulting global economic winter ["worth it"], as a follow-up to his looong time attack/occupy Iraq screams pre-2003 ... PMO!!!
Namaste - rich

WOW TTSers & Lurkers, trust you savoured Bret Stephen's WSJ editorial claiming that we won our war in Iraq and McCain is right, citing a $100 bet with a Neocon buddy. Well, here is his buddy's response published in today's WSJ ... he supports Obama!

Please always enjoy - RichPundit

	August 15, 2008

OPINION

Iraq May Be Stable, But the War Was a Mistake By FRANCIS FUKUYAMA August 15, 2008; Page A13 Sometime in May 2003, shortly after U.S. forces had taken Baghdad and President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier under the banner "Mission Accomplished," an old friend remarked that he thought the war was going pretty well so far. I shook my head and said I thought we were in for trouble. I bet him that day that Iraq would be a mess in five years' time, a mess being defined as "you'll know it when you see it." I mentioned this bet to Bret Stephens three years later. He'd reviewed my book, "America at the Crossroads" in this newspaper, accusing me, among other things, of turning against the war only when public opinion had shifted. Mr. Stephens wanted to take the wager himself. And as he wrote in his column earlier this month, I conceded that he'd won by the narrow terms of the wager. Iraq was a mess by any definition from the fall of 2003 to the beginning of this year. It is entirely possible that it will return to being a mess in the coming months and years. But I paid $100 to Mr. Stephens because a tremendous amount of progress has been made stabilizing Iraq as a result of President Bush's surge -- which has allowed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to establish control over Baghdad and much of southern Iraq. Though Iraq remains a very troubled country, virtually all of the trend lines -- Iraqi and U.S. casualties, government provision of basic services, and the ability of Iraqi forces to provide order -- have been moving in a positive direction for the past year. What I absolutely did not concede, however, was the fact that this change meant that the war itself was worth it. By invading Iraq in the manner it did, the U.S. exacerbated all of the threats it faced prior to 2003. Recruitment into terrorist cells shot up all over the world. North Korea and Iran accelerated their development of nuclear weapons. Indeed, Iran has emerged as the dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf once the U.S. removed its major rival from the scene and put its Shiite clients into power in Baghdad. While everyone is better off without Saddam Hussein around, the cost was hugely disproportionate. If you don't believe this, ask yourself whether Congress would ever have voted to authorize the war in 2002 if it knew there was no WMD, or that there would be trillion-dollar budget outlays, or that there would be 30,000 dead and wounded after five years of bitter struggle. There are deeper, intangible costs. The Bush administration this week rebuked Russia for its disproportionate military intervention in Georgia; many rightly suspect Moscow's real goal is regime change of the pro-Western, democratic government in Tbilisi. But who set the most recent precedent for a big power intervening to change a regime it didn't like, without the sanction of the U.N. Security Council or any other legitimating international body? Of course, there is no moral equivalence between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Mikheil Saakashvili's Georgia. But the U.S. is scarcely in a position today to rally opposition to Russia on the basis of international law and norms constraining the strong from using force against the weak. Republican presidential candidate John McCain says he was right in supporting the surge and that Democrat Barack Obama was wrong in opposing it. On this tactical issue I grant that Sen. McCain was right. But Sen. Obama was right on the much more important strategic question of whether the war itself was a prudent policy, and here Mr. McCain remains as wrong as ever. Mr. Obama does not share McCain's instinctive reliance on hard power as the primary instrument for dealing with messy questions of terrorism and proliferation in the broader Middle East. This is one reason I support him for president. Mr. Obama and other long-time opponents of the Iraq war are strongly disinclined to admit anything is going well in Iraq. Psychologically and politically, this is understandable: The smallest concession induces supporters of the war to argue that they were right all along, as Mr. Stephens did. But Mr. Obama should fervently hope that Iraq is not a mess if and when he takes office, since only a stable Iraq will allow him to prudently fulfill the withdrawal timetable he has promised. The failure to acknowledge a bad reality back in 2003 should not lead us to make the opposite mistake five years later. Mr. Fukuyama is professor of international political economy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and author of "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy" (Yale, 2007).