posted on December 25, 2002 02:38:10 AM new
The following from Cheryl Seal is lengthy but it provides the background to my having posed the question topic of this thread. I don't see a way to use it here in any but it's complete form
Cheryl is a political analyst, a reporter, an author; and she has appeared over the years on several of the network news shows over the years. She's been on her path now for over forty years giving insight, looking further, and expressing her feelings freely. No doubt it's because of that last aspect that you don't know or hear a lot about her as her views often run counter to the soothing sorts of things that people in this country seem to seek in their news. So, from about the middle of November...
" A reliable email contact sent me a link two days ago to an article in Pravda that stated that 16 Americans had been killed in an attack in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border. When I did a search, I found the following article in Afghan.com, substantiating that claim and backing it up with details. However, the non-cached version had a blank where the article was supposed to be...with a note: "Article Removed at Author's request." The "author," according to the article itself, is an official (the only ones with the authority to report incidents) with the Afghan Defense Ministry. However, I retrieved the mirrored (cached) version.
A little while afterward, my contact sent a note reporting that an editor at American Free Press had contacted someone in the Pentagon about the story and that the Pentagon contact had said it was "completely false." Now a fellow activist in Maryland sent me an essay that he was inspired to write this week in response to an urgent email from the wife of an American soldier in Afghanistan who sent her a note asking for prayers because, he said "we are in a bloodbath here."
Could it be that the Bush war has already started and the body count is rising — but the public is simply not being told? Why? Because Bush is right on the edge of getting away with starting a new war — can't have the public know about body counts in the one we are still entrapped in.
When I tried to post the link at Democrats.com in the hope that some congressfolks would see it, it was posted, but then pulled down after about two hours ... no doubt in response to a call from the Pentagon. But here's the story ... anyone who has heard anything from anyone in Afghanistan or wives and other family of soldiers who might know, send a note. We will not abandon our troops, even if our government plans to!
Here is the text of the notice in Afghan.com:
"InterFax 10.11.2002 19:16:02 Kabul. Nov 10 (Interfax) - Sixteen U.S. soldiers are reported to have been killed in Afghanistan on Sunday, an Afghan Defense Ministry source told Interfax on Sunday evening. 'Three U.S. Hummer vehicles hit radio-controlled landmines in the Paktia province,' the source said. In a separate incident, a checkpoint, a military base near the town of Khowst and strong points in the Gardez province, have come under a missile and artillery strike, the source said. 'A total of 16 U.S. servicemen are reported to have been killed, five cars and armored vehicles have been destroyed,' he said." [The Pentagon reportedly had the story removed and is denying the incident]
http:// www.afgha.com/ article.php?sid= 17533
Here is the essay from Auset Lee, the writer in Maryland:
"We're In a Bloodbath Here ... Please Pray for Us"
The media promotes Bush as America's "Top Gun." As far as Osama Bin Laden is concerned, I have one word to say: missed. And I've just gotta tell the smirking American Leader of a Wrecked Economy, George Dubya, (oh, it's too easy a setup): you're no Tom Cruise.
I'm a bit cranky because I woke up to an email from an American woman who received an urgent message from her husband, an Air Force Commander in Afghanistan who said "We're in a blood bath here!" The person who sent the email was calling for prayer.
While the press obsesses over Democratic losses in November and casts about to find a coherent party line from politicos who are hedging their bets, while the nation is mesmerized by The Washington Post's shameless promotion of Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War, while media mulls over Woodward's words and directs the nation's attention to the relationship between Secretary of State Colin Powell and the president, while people debate whether or not Powell is locked out of the cabinet of hawks and "in the icebox"; America is in the frying pan and about to jump into the fire. Afghanistan is the frying pan; Iraq is the fire. So who can hear or believe this soldier's missive above the diversionary din of non-issues, and cult-of- personality media reporting.
"We're in a blood bath here."
Even though Bin Laden has just resurfaced very much alive, the issue of the Top Gun's obvious missed target, is dead. The pentagon public relations mill, having sold the war with Afghanistan like a consumer commodity, is counting on fickle Americans' disdain and disinterest in last year's war model. The bellicose cry to oust Saddam is loud enough to drown out the bad news from Afghanistan where the warlords remain entrenched and our troops are embattled.
↑ TOP OF PAGE ↑
Instead of being diverted by the media's promotion of one person's take on the Oil office, sold for money, let us take a moment to hear the plea of an American soldier. We know that the president's yelp for "Bin Laden, dead or alive" gave us Bin Laden alive . We know that Bush has reneged on the promise of a "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan and that the bright flower of democracy has not taken root, as promised. According to news from Alternet:
"We want to be a continuing part of the new era of hope in Afghanistan," said Bush on Oct. 11, at an event highlighting U.S. humanitarian assistance in that country. He added, "We are helping the people to now recover from years of tyranny and oppression. We're helping Afghanistan to claim its democratic future, and we're helping that nation to establish public order and safety."
But the fact of the matter is that funds for reconstruction in Afghanistan "have been flowing slowly to the country. Moreover, several months ago the White House opposed an effort in Congress to add $200 million to the total. And the total number of U.S. troops committed to rebuilding — after the doubling — will be 340." That's nothing, this article says.
There seems to be a disconnect between "get tough" sound bites from the administration aimed at Al Qaeda, and the terrorists that seem to be biting back, unfazed and undeterred. Americans are subject to heightened security alerts, and the news is full of terrorist attacks. Get tough? Maybe Bush needs to get a clue. The one consistent clue that it takes no Sherlock to uncover, is oil. Enron Bush, the oil presidential cabinet, and aggression in oil rich territories.
Oil, oil, oil.
If oil is the issue and not American protectionism and pride, that might explain why millions of people all over the world are demonstrating against a "war for oil" and why Americans are no safer today than they were the day after 9-11. That may explain why it seems that Afghanistan is a war abandoned. That might explain the email, "We're in a blood bath here."
But not to hear Bushniks tell it: pundits, apologists, and think tank experts point us in other directions. Watch out for Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. In the Bush administration weapons of mass destruction has become an acronym, WMD, after years of presidential diplomacy, nonproliferation agreements, and peace activists that worked to make those words almost unmentionable. And the Big Man on the international campus with the most WMDs is using them to lock and load against exponentially weaker nations. George W. Cruise — missile.
"And, by the way, the $10.5 million raised for the Afghan Children's Fund is about one-twentieth of the amount Bush spent getting elected in 2000," says the Alternet article.
So as this government is about to commit its young men to die in Iraq, America is distracted from looking at the blood of the last war. Americans were so desensitized to the slaughter of cave dwellers, that they made jokes about the people throwing rocks against U.S. military technoforce. Ha ha. But bin Laden resurfaces and reminds us that Top Gun failed to nail a major bull's eye. And then failed to clean up his mess.
Even though the public is distracted by media that latches onto preening politicos trying to polish their own power agendas, Bob Woodward's media-trumpeted book tour, and the new movie, The Emperor's Club, the blood from Afghanistan is seeping into America's conscience through the internet.
That's why I am writing this. To spread the spill into the public eye. War is blood, and many Americans lust for more. Meanwhile there has been no blood spilled in Afghanistan that has bought more freedom for anybody, or security in the world. "We're in a blood bath here!" This soldier asks for our prayers.
No matter how much of Bush at War we read for an inside-the- beltway look at the Oil Office, most Americans are outsiders "in the icebox" under an unelected government giving the people's issues the cold shoulder. Health care, education, clean air, labor rights. Forget it. Bush war adventures are not aimed at improving the life of Americans or anybody else. They are for lining the pockets of an international gang of super-rich. Bush and the crew behind him remind me of a movie about the gang that couldn't shoot straight. But they're not funny. They're hell-bent on escalating their brutality to Iraq in a world-endorsed war (massacre) to establish dominance in the region and in the world. For those of you cheering the red, white, and blue, pay close attention to the red. Hear the anti-war cry "blood for oil" and check your hands to make sure they're clean.
posted on December 26, 2002 09:39:56 AM new
(by the way, the streets of Oakland are quite safe so long as you are not a black person anywhere near any drug trafficking activities).
We each have our own opinion about what makes a city 'quite safe'. But Oakland's crime rate is MUCH higher, in many areas than the national average.
posted on December 26, 2002 08:50:11 PM new"We each have our own opinion about what makes a city 'quite safe'. But Oakland's crime rate is MUCH higher, in many areas than the national average".
Make your cracker neighbors oooh and aaah when you pretend an expertise about CA all you want to, but we both know that you don't know your arse from page eight and never did find out even when you had your trailer south of Blossom Hill road in San Jose, you bon bon gobbling home shopping network addicted blue haired hag in a filthy muuumuuu wrinkled over every square inch except where it's ironed by being stretched over your stupendous backside.
posted on December 26, 2002 09:13:25 PM new"Borillar, your tactics are laughable. You (by "you" I mean the pseudo-extremist regulars here) are caught in a lie, so of course, you say it was only a joke. That's why thinking people don't take you seriously. Citing sources such as the Jihad Press not only undermines this specific argument, but your entire political stand. Obviously you can't back up what you say, it's just a joke, so why should anyone even bother to debate it? You're not sincere, and when you are disproved, you simply move on to a new lie." -twinsoft-
(a) I am not a liar.
(b) I did not cite the Jihad Press
(c) I never stated anything in here that I can't back up
(d) I have yet to be disproved on anything i wrote in this thread
Therefore . . .
you obviously did not read this thread, twinsoft. Otherwise, your sinde comments would be fired at KRS. Stop drinking so much holiday punch and then come back to respond. It's that obvious.
My! Look at that. Seems like oakland has a lower per capita rate than the whole country if you doctor the site to your liking.
[ edited by krs on Dec 26, 2002 10:52 PM ]
posted on December 26, 2002 11:20:45 PM new
That was an interesting input from Cheryl, KRS. I would say that we are not in a bloodbath at this time. Rather, we are on the verge of one. We dealt Al-Queda a serious blow, but now they have regrouped and reorganized. And they are on the move. The first thing that they want to do is to torture Americans. The Americans there in Afghanistan are, once again, doing a policeman's job and are standing targets. With the local warlords out of control and support slipping so harshly from Bush, Al-Queda, the military arm of the political Taliban, are back in business. They are waging guerilla war, a war of attrition. The only response that will be made is to escalate the troop and material level (sound familiar?) and then to retaliate against local villages and the use of Death Squads. All the while, the Al-Queda Command and Control will be left intact.
So why did Bush abandon Afghanistan? Why did he go back on his pledges and break his given word?
He obviously wants a war with Iraq to get at that nation's resources and no amount of denial from the White House is making a difference of opinion with the American people.
But if we can fight a War to two fronts, then why has he had to pull everything out of Afghanistan?
This is the result of putting a President in who is too stupid to have read History. When asked during the presidential Debates "Who is your favorite Military Leader in History?" and after a pause, Bush stated, "Jesus." Remember that? Now American soldiers are paying the price of that stupidity of the American People and this is just the beginning. Bush can not focus and win one war, let alone successfully conduct two at the same time, no matter what the Hawks are claiming.
The bottom line is, is that the longer that our troops are stationed in Afghanistan without a full-force rebuilding plan as promised, each success against our troops will inspire a dozen others to happen next. We can't afford to lash out at the locals, however. We have to help them if we want their continued cooperation.
Maybe the Vietnamese don't mind dealing with Americans in their country once again, but those of Arabic descent seem to carry grudges for thousands of years at a time and we're better off getting their gratitude for a thousand years. It takes skill and a willingness to help out others the way that sends Republicans into convulsions of disgust - handouts to the poor and impoverished in Afghanistan; education commitments and rebuilding the infrastructure; creating a coalition government, not this Bush-patsy/Bully/Saddam-alike put into power over there. It can't be done by a Republican administration because it goes against everything that they have stood for since Ronald Reagan was President. It will take a Democratic government and Administration. Why is it the Republicans always mess up the country and leave it to the Democrats to pick up after them and to clean up their messes?
(right. Recall it was Eisenhower who got us into Viet-nam, not Kennedy or Johnson. Also, Nixon ran twice on the "pulling us out of Viet-nam" political party platform. It wasn't until his balls were to the walls with pressure from every direction that he finally went to the table for serious discussions on how to end it. Yeah, be real proud of *that* non-achievement!)
