The al quaida freakoes are growing stronger and stronger in Afghanistan and Iraq/Iran report the liars on the news programs. I have a solution for the problem;
"MR. PRESIDENT,
GET THE B-52'S IN THE AIR !!!"
__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER
svenska50@hotmail.com
From Fox news.[/b]
[/b]
WASHINGTON" Usama bin Laden[/b] and his No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahiri[/b], are rebuilding the Al Qaeda[/b] terror group along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, but the bases are smaller and lieutenants are less experienced, a U.S. official said Monday.[/b]
The American official was confirming a story reported in Monday's New York Times that said a band of training camps has popped up in Pakistan along the Afghan border and the leadership chain of command has been re-established despite an "erosion" of leadership after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
"Old hands have been picked off and the new people are less capable and less seasoned," the official said. But "no one suggests Al Qaeda no longer has a command structure or a haven ... though [we] wouldn't call it a safe haven."
In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute last week, President Bush said that across Afghanistan last year, "the number of roadside bomb attacks almost doubled, direct fire attacks on international forces almost tripled and suicide bombings grew nearly five-fold.
"These escalating attacks were part of a Taliban offensive that made 2006 the most violent year in Afghanistan since the liberation of the country."
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
Seriously, it will take going into Pakistan to actually get OBL & pancho. Some could be done with aerial bombardment; however, it's mountainous & would require some very good intelligence & quick action. Musharraf, the Pakistani leader, has little control over the mountains - it's dominated by warlords in somewhat of a feudal system. The US hasn't gone into Pakistan for fear of causing problems for Musharraf & losing him (& Pakistan's nuclear weapons)to a coup. I've read where the Pakistani military had been boxing in AQ... What's the answer? It'd be pretty difficult to flatten the mountains, I'd hope some special forces teams are able to get in there to the right place...
Al Queda and it's Taliban lackies have taken back about one-third of Afghanistan. It is just too bad that the US abandoned responsibility for the primary war on terror in Afghanistan and pawned it off on NATO. Musharraf is not a friend of the US and never will be.He gave the Taliban and Al Queda the green light to operate at will in the in Pakistan border areas. i wish that we had a president with the guts to nuke those border areas until they glow.
Undisclosed Location, Afghanistan)-- Leaders of Al-Qaeda announced today that they are officially backing Massachusetts Senator John F. "Frenchy" Kerry in the 2004 United States presidential campaign.
"We examined very carefully the policies of the candidates of the two major political parties," said Sheik Ali bin Mooqi, chairman of Al-Qaeda"s Committee for Jihad and Political Outreach, "And we determined that Senator Kerry"s policies are good for Al-Qaeda. We are especially impressed with Senator Kerry"s desire to let the United Nations take over the War Against Terror. Diplomatic dialogue is the terrorist"s best friend, and we are encouraged by Senator Kerry"s embrace of appeasement."
Officials for Al-Qaeda say that they will spend a large amount of money on voter education programs, including the torture, kidnapping and execution of anyone opposed to Senator Kerry"s election. "We"ve also earmarked funds for ballot-stuffing," said Mr. Mooqi. "As you can well imagine, Florida is a high priority."
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a source close to the Kerry campaign told this reporter that Senator Kerry welcomes the support of Al-Qaeda and wants to make his campaign a "big-tent campaign even if some of his supporters want to burn down the tent. The Senator believes that cultural diversity is much more important than national security." Arafat Backs Kerry, Israelis Favor Bush By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com Pacific Rim Bureau Chief
October 19, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - Relying on the traditional support of Jewish voters, the Kerry-Edwards campaign may not welcome news from the Middle East on how the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict view the election.
Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority on Monday gave its first public indication of which candidate it would like to see in the White House next year.
"If [President] Bush wins, he said he would renew efforts to resume the peace process," PA foreign minister Nabil Shaath told the BBC in London. "However, with the staff that surrounds him and with his current opinions, it doesn't look promising."
Under a Kerry administration, however, "it would be likely that several staff members during Clinton's administration would return," Shaath said. "That would be a good thing, but it could take at least a year before a policy is formulated."
Elaborating on the PA's unhappiness with the incumbent, the Palestine Media Center -- an official PA institution -- said Palestinians held the Bush administration responsible for Israel's isolation of Arafat since the end of 2001.
"Bush's refusal to deal with Arafat was interpreted by Palestinians as another "green light'' for Israel to impose and to maintain the siege on Arafat," it said.
The comments add substance to an assessment last July by Israel's military intelligence chief, Major-General Aharon Ze'evi, who was quoted as telling the cabinet: "Arafat is now waiting for the month of November in the hope that President Bush will be defeated in the presidential election and turned out of his office."
The PA view on the election contrasts sharply with that of Israeli leaders, who have echoed the words spoken by former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Washington in 2002: "There has never been a greater friend of Israel in the White House than President George W. Bush."
Last week, in a coordinated survey of opinions in 10 key countries in Europe, Asia and North America, Israel was one of only two countries -- the other was Russia -- where poll respondents favored Bush over Kerry (by 50 percentage points to 24).
Other polls in Israel have indicated that a majority of Israelis are grateful to Bush for going to war against Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of the Jewish state.
'Force of habit'
Jewish organizations in the U.S. say Jewish voters base their choice largely on domestic issues -- and most are liberals.
Writing in the Boston Globe last month, columnist Jeff Jacoby attributed Jewish loyalty to the Democratic ticket to historical factors.
"In the 19th and early 20th centuries, waves of Jewish immigrants from Europe, where the most anti-Semitic elements of society were often the most conservative, brought with them an intense aversion to right-wing politics -- and an appreciation for the left, which they associated with emancipation and equality."
Jacoby argued that the U.S. in 2004 was a very different country, and said, "American Jews owe it to themselves to base their political loyalty on something stronger than force of habit."
Israel is a very important factor for American Jews.
In its annual opinion survey, published last month, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) found that 75 percent of Jewish respondents felt "very close" or "fairly close" to Israel.
Seventy-four percent agreed that "caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew."
Respondents in the AJC survey backed Kerry over Bush by 69 points to 24.
That support for the Democrats constitutes a drop-off from the last three elections. President Clinton won 80 percent of the Jewish vote in 1992 and 78 percent in 1996. In 2000, Al Gore won 79 percent of the Jewish vote while Bush only garnered 19 percent.
The Republican Jewish Coalition has been drawing attention to some other recent endorsements of Kerry, which it says Jewish voters should be worried about - those of the Arab-American PAC and the Muslim-American PAC.
"Clearly these groups do not support President Bush because of his unwavering support for Israel and his relentless war against Islamic terrorists," RJC executive director Matthew Brooks said in a statement Monday.
"The endorsements of John Kerry by these two anti-Israel groups speaks volumes and should serve as a warning to Jewish Americans who think John Kerry is on their side."
Brooks noted that Kerry called Arafat a "statesman" in his 1997 book, The New War. ("Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encourage by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman," Kerry wrote.)
Bush has pointedly refused to invite Arafat to the White House during the past four years, a far cry from the days of the last Democratic administration, at the end of which Time magazine reported that "President Clinton has held more tete-a-tetes with the Palestinian leader than any other world leader during his eight years in office."
On its website, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) presents what is says are the candidates' records on Israel.
On Arafat, it notes that Kerry said last March that the PA chairman had "proved himself to be irrelevant," but it makes no reference to the 1997 assessment of Arafat as a statesman.
As for Bush, the NJDC noted that Bush in 2002 was quoted as saying he would not label Arafat a terrorist because he "has agreed to a peace process." The council made no reference to the fact Bush made Arafat persona non grata at the White House.
On Israel's security fence, the NJDC highlighted the Bush administration's concerns about the route of the barrier rather than its support for Israel's right to build it.
It also ignored that fact that the administration opposed the right of the International Court of Justice to rule on the matter.
On the other hand, it cited comments by Kerry in February and April 2004 showing that he "strongly supported Israel's right to build" the barrier.
The NJDC made no mention of another Kerry quote on the fence, last October, when he told an Arab American audience the fence was "provocative," "counterproductive" and a "barrier to peace."
Friday, May 12, 2006 12:24 a.m. EDT
Dems Join Suit to Ban Terrorist Surveillance
[/align]Until now, Democrats had insisted that they didn't want to end President Bush's terrorist surveillance program, saying instead that the law merely needed to be changed to make terrorist surveillance inside the U.S. illegal.
On Wednesday, however - even before USA Today's bogus report about the NSA's phone number data collection program - 71 House Democrats signed up to sponsor a move that would make it illegal for the NSA to continue to monitor terrorist phone calls.
The liberal web site Raw Story reported Thursday:
"The 71 Democrats and one independent filed an amicus brief in two federal courts reviewing challenges to the warrantless wiretapping program in Detroit and New York, joining the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights."
"Both suits demand the program be stopped."
__________________
"I shot em down, one by one and left em on the rails. I use my guns whenever kindness fails." REK
Al Quaida
[/align]Until now, Democrats had insisted that they didn't want to end President Bush's terrorist surveillance program, saying instead that the law merely needed to be changed to make terrorist surveillance inside the U.S. illegal. 
