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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (58886)	8/9/2004 6:17:24 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793931

No "American soldiers" in Pakistan. Deniability. Elite veterans prowl Pakistan By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published August 9, 2004 The United States, on the hunt for Osama bin Laden, is augmenting counterterror operations in Pakistan with scores of former special-operations warriors who work for the CIA and other agencies under contract. Thousands of U.S. troops are openly fighting in Afghanistan along the Pakistan border. The stated U.S. policy, however, is that no American troops are inside Pakistan pursuing bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorists or advising local troops. The reality is there are "a load of contracts" with U.S. agencies attracting veterans of Special Forces and other elite units to Pakistan, one source told The Washington Times. The official ban is in deference to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose solid alliance with the United States in the war on terror stops short of allowing American ground troops in his country. Asked at a March press conference whether U.S. troops were inside Pakistan hunting for Osama bin Laden, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld responded, "The U.S. Department of Defense people? I doubt it. Not that I know of." But Washington is getting around the ban by signing up former Delta Force commandos, SEALs and Green Berets and assigning them to special duties in Pakistan, according to two sources close to the special-operations community. "There are a load of contracts going on for ex-SF [Special Forces] types there for every alphabet agency there is," one of the sources said. The source said the former covert warriors joined CIA operations in Pakistan and train local soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques. The de facto deployment of U.S. troops is an example of how far Pakistan -- an acknowledged nuclear power -- has come in its global alliances. Once a backer of the al Qaeda-supporting Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Islamabad has become one of Washington's most essential allies. There was a time when such cooperation seemed impossible. In the early days of President Bush's term, Dan Gallington, then a senior adviser to Mr. Rumsfeld, received a courtesy call from a former top Pakistani defense official who told him that the Taliban was sure to finally defeat the Northern Alliance and conquer all of Afghanistan. More alarmingly, this person predicted that his country also would fall to Islamic militants -- making it the first theocracy to own the world's most powerful weapon. Three years later, Pakistan is the setting for the third hot war in the global war on terrorism, joining Afghanistan and Iraq as places where the military hunts and battles al Qaeda and other terrorists. Bush administration officials say, in an odd twist, bin Laden's September 11 attacks might have saved Pakistan. Gen. Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 coup, saw his hold threatened by Islamic militants who were infiltrating more organs of government, especially the powerful intelligence service. "Musharraf has clawed his way back, aggressively supported by the United States," said Mr. Gallington, an analyst at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. "We saved Musharraf in the nick of time. Pakistan is the focal point in that part of the world, and Musharraf understands that." September 11 forced Gen. Musharraf to pick sides under pressure from Mr. Bush. He chose the United States. During the invasion of Afghanistan in December 2001, the Pakistani president allowed his soil to be used by U.S. special-operations forces and the Predator spy drone to begin missions across the border. During the subsequent counterinsurgency that continues today, he took an even bigger step. For the first time in memory, a president of Pakistan sent government troops into the vast tribal lands bordering Afghanistan. They are hunting for bin Laden and, in the process, confronting and killing bands of al Qaeda terrorists. Pakistan's close working relationship with the CIA and FBI produced the arrests this summer of key al Qaeda members who use the country as a base from which to plan attacks and conduct worldwide communications. One key capture was Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who was indicted in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. On the ideological front, Gen. Musharraf's government has begun dismantling the network of harsh schools or madrassas that teach the young to hate. They are being replaced by public schools funded by the United States. Pakistan served as sanctuary for bin Laden and his network for more than a decade. The teeming neighborhoods of cities such as Karachi and Islamabad serve as perfect hiding places. Now, Gen. Musharraf is allowing CIA and FBI personnel to infiltrate those haunts, as his troops mount incursions into no man's land. It is all part of a risky attempt to methodically weed deadly militants from his country, while keeping the larger population in check. Mr. Rumsfeld, in an Aug. 3 interview with Atlanta-based radio talk-show host Neil Boortz, described the alliance. "We have thousands of troops in Afghanistan that are working along that Afghan-Pakistan border in close cooperation with the Pakistan government," the defense secretary said. "And the belief continues to be that Osama bin Laden and some of his senior operatives are possibly in Pakistan or in parts of Afghanistan from time to time."

To: LindyBill who wrote (58886)	8/9/2004 8:39:46 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793931

Chicago Tribune now joins in on Swiftvets vs Kerry Frey Vietnam vets question Kerry's fitness for commander in chief Dennis Byrne, a Chicago-area writer and public affairs consultant Published August 9, 2004 Whatever reason John Kerry volunteered to go to war--whether he was whacked out on patriotism or from his cravings for the presidency--the fact that he put his life on the line cannot be denied. Even if he was willing to get killed because he was consumed by an irrational desire to be president, it shouldn't matter. Anyone who gets shot at in the service of our country deserves the nation's gratitude. Period. So, the increasingly contentious debate over Kerry's Vietnam War record could have ended there. But Kerry decided otherwise. The honor guard of his Vietnam buddies at the Democratic National Convention, his repeated and tiresome self-praise about his combat record, the TV ads and the parade of medals--they all put Kerry's war and anti-war records into play. In pushing his war record as a reason for electing him president, Kerry himself has decided to touch a third rail, and is getting the jolt he deserves. Namely, a blunt TV ad featuring Vietnam veterans who knew him in combat, but whom Kerry did not trot out at the convention. They say he lied about his injuries, the "atrocities" he says he saw, his "valor," his medals and that he bugged out on his shipmates at the first opportunity. Sponsored by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, it tells voters in battleground states that Kerry's war record proves that he is not qualified to be commander in chief. Kerry cites that record as evidence that he has the courage, strength, trustworthiness, loyalty and military savvy to be commander in chief. The ad and the group's Web site (www.swiftvets.com) directly attacks those assertions, describing Kerry as dishonest, reckless, unreliable, indecisive and prone to jeopardizing his crew. To be fair, only one of his former crewmembers, Steven Gardner, has gone public against Kerry. Gardner, who did two tours in Vietnam (compared to Kerry's four months), said, "I served alongside and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy. ... If a man like that can't handle the six-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our commander in chief?" Kerry's campaign says to ignore these Vietnam vets, because none, but one, actually rode with him in his boats. But anyone who has served in the military knows that fellow swift boat skippers are well qualified to judge him. Consider: Kerry's campaign repeatedly uses a photo of him and 19 fellow swift boat skippers in campaign ads. But they don't say what these comrades in arms think of Kerry. A survey by the swift boat veterans group found out that 12, with another four not shown, believe Kerry is unfit to serve as commander in chief. Four others are neutral and two have died. That leaves only one of a jury of Kerry's 23 peers who supports his candidacy, according to the group. The view of Kerry from some officers up the chain of command above him is no better--they're convinced that he is unqualified. Cmdr. Adrian Lonsdale said, "[Kerry] lacks the capacity to lead." Lt. Cmdr. Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, his direct superior, was particularly unimpressed when Kerry "informed me of a wound--he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own [weapons]." These officers and men have every right to go public with their views. Despite the hissing from the Kerry political apparatus that the group is a bunch of GOP-connected liars, and condemnation of the ad from former POW Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), this is but another side of a story that Kerry himself brought up. They have as much of a right to be heard as voters have the right to hear, so they can judge who is lying. Especially since they believe he lied not just about his record, but theirs. As the group's Web site says: "For more than 30 years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, addicts and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the presidency, we have resolved to end our silence." ---------- E-mail: dbyrne1942@earthlink.net Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

To: LindyBill who wrote (58886)	8/9/2004 12:11:09 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793931

Kerry's legal team, and the DNC legal teams sure thought it was alright for Michael Moore to spread lies and misinformation about the President and his Administration, didn't they???? The other interesting thing is that they are trying to SHUT DOWN a larger group of Vets....and most probably finding ways to smear them as well. Let me see.....Kerry's group of 13 Vets are all OK....and a group of more than 200 Vets are not OK at all....and certainly can't have the right to speak.... the Dems say. Hummmmmmm... Hopefully, this will get out to main stream America....and they can make up their minds. The Democrats are trying to behave like Stalin. Or Hitler. Not letting people speak freely is the first step.