Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (43229)	4/20/2004 11:10:34 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Front Sight Focus – March 2004 The Hunt for Bin Laden by Martin L. Strong sealstrike.com Good guys, bad guys, car chases, in the end, well deserved justice. It’s the stuff American novels and movies are made of. Americans love their villains and historically they have focused their national angst on the personality in charge of our enemies. Hitler in Nazi Germany, General Tojo in Imperial Japan, Mao Ze Dong in Communist China, and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam -- the list goes on and on. Now we have Osama Bin Laden -- master terrorist, architect of the brutal attacks on American non-combatants, the scourge of democracy in the new millennium. Bin Laden has played the role of America’s villain extremely well, crowding the media with threats, detailed edicts, and verbose speeches filled with fiery rhetoric aimed at the great Satan and her allies. So it makes sense that for the past two years the public focus (via the keyhole view of the mass media) has been directed at capturing Osama Bin Laden. We Americans know the deal -- capture the villain and the terror will end -- game over. It’s no wonder, then, that we watch and listen with great expectations and hope when we’re told Bin Laden is near capture and feel let down when he yet again eludes our forces. You see, we Americans are used to seeing peace and closure when our enemy "villain" is vanquished and therefore we sincerely believe the eventual capture of Osama Bin Laden will be no different. The war on terror will end that very day, we’re sure of it! Well, I have a news flash for you. Over the past fifteen years Osama Bin Laden has succeeded in creating a complicated and globally entrenched franchise of terror, a franchise that has ensured consistent standards of terror training, planning, and execution for hundreds of terrorist groups on every continent on the planet. The capture of Bin Laden would have been critical after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City. His capture would have been vital in stamping out the Al Qaeda terror network after the bombing of the USS Cole. However, at this point in history, his death or capture now will barely satisfy the need for justice -- barely impact the worldwide franchise of terror, as the students and lieutenants of Osama Bin Laden plan and plot in the shadows. Bin Laden’s capture or death will not create the environment for a negotiated ceasefire. It will not serve to reduce the threat the terror franchise poses to America and her allies. It is important to understand that Osama Bin Laden’s greatest value now is that of symbology. He has become the embodiment of righteous Jihad to millions of Muslims. Alive or dead, he serves continues to serve that purpose. So how does this madness end? If we can’t achieve closure by beheading the beast, how might we defeat those who wish our destruction? The answer lies in a careful study of how America has prosecuted the war on terror. Critics who focus on power players such as Saddam or Bin Laden view the quick capture of these men as a true measurement of success, if not outright victory. This is absurd. The reality of the franchise of terror actually demands a sweeping assault on the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of those organizations. This is, in fact, a war -- not the policing of criminals. The terror trainers and their students must be located and resolutely dealt with. The operational commanders and planners must be eradicated to ensure America’s security. Finally, the strategic leaders must be found and rendered mute. To do less is folly and, worse, wishful thinking. Hope is not a legitimate national defense strategy. I have no doubt that the capture of Osama Bin Laden will create great pressure on the president to "bring the boys home"-- to end the war after declaring sweet victory. The political opposition and anti-war critics may vigorously applaud a new era of peace so as to diminish the role and responsibilities of our next Commander-in-Chief. Ironically, this would place George W. Bush precisely where his father found himself – a victorious post-war commander with no more evil to fight. Of course, such foolishness would represent a false sense of security. The world terror franchise will continue to recruit, train, and plan. A different personality will rise to the occasion and become the new leader of global Jihad. The war on terror can only be won by ruthlessly hunting down the merchants of death at every level of their organization and in every corner of the planet. The sooner Americans understand this cold fact, the sooner we will win. Martin L. Strong

To: lurqer who wrote (43229)	4/20/2004 12:03:26 PM
From: Crimson Ghost	Respond to of 89467

Prince Bandar, Propagandist Apr 20 2004 Memo To: Bob Woodward From: Jude Wanniski Re: Our Saudi Friends When I tuned in to the Larry King show last night to hear you discuss your terrific new book, "Plan of Attack," I was glad to see Larry went to the trouble of getting the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan, on the telephone to fence with you over some facts. Through books like yours, the American people are just now beginning to learn how much propaganda the Bush administration employed in making the case for its pre-emptive war with Iraq. Other journalists like you might eventually dig into the first Gulf War where they will find plenty of propaganda. Even then, they will find Prince Bandar playing a key role in persuading a skeptical U.S. Congress that Saddam Hussein`s invasion of of Kuwait was more than a clash over oil revenues between Saddam and the Emir of Kuwait. It was Bandar who, using photographs supplied to him by the warhawks in the Pentagon -- Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and his undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz -- first persuaded King Fahd of Saudi Arabia that Saddam was poised to attack and conquer Saudi Arabia itself once he had swallowed Kuwait! We now know this was a bunch of baloney. Iraq was not only broke, it also owed a debt of gratitude to Saudi King Fahd. The ruse did, though, have its effect on skeptical Democrats, those who voted for the war after earlier skepticism. Even I was snookered by Prince Bandar when he made a big show of the aerial photographs showing tanks lined up in the desert, supposedly ready to thrust into Saudi Arabia from their positions in Kuwait. I had opposed U.S. intervention, smelling a rat when I noted that the other Arab nations in the region seemed not at all upset with Saddam`s move into Kuwait. The Emir of Kuwait had been pumping oil way above his pledge to the other OPEC nations and had driven the world price so low that all of the OPEC nations were suffering. Iraq, which was almost bankrupt anyway because of the debts it had run up in fighting Iran in their eight-year war, suffered most. Saddam thought the monarchies he had protected from the wrath of Ayatollah Khomeini would be grateful to him, and King Fahd was, telling Saddam he would not have to pay off the Iraqi debts to his Kingdom. The Emir of Kuwait not only demanded payment in full, but also waged obvious economic warfare against Iraq with his oil policies -- including drilling under the Iraq/Kuwait border to steal Iraqi crude. He had been assured by Dick Cheney that if Saddam moved into Kuwait, the U.S. would rush to his aid. Remember all that? If you remain puzzled why, after 9-11, the Bush administration was so eager to hustle the Saudi families out of the U.S., including relatives of Osama bin Laden, you need only realize the debt of gratitude the Pentagon warhawks and Vice President Cheney owe to Riyadh in general and Prince Bandar in particular. It should be no surprise at all that Bandar was a primary cheerleader for the pre-emptive war against Iraq and now expresses great delight that Saddam is gone for good. Saddam of course knew of Bandar`s propaganda role and Bandar knew he knew, which must have been slightly unsettling to the Prince. If you wish to read more about all this, I did write a "Memo on the Margin" in 2002 about that 1991 briefing I got from the Prince. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who had been U.N. Ambassador in the Reagan administration, was in the same private briefing and was snookered too. Click here: