Yesterday's show had "Arthur" offering his seasoned opinions on torture of suspects, advocating "doing things" to a guy to make him "talk like a parrot."
One recalls Arthur's reaction to the foiled UK airlines plot where, in advocating bombing of civillian areas, he effectively justified the plot and previous Al Queda ops like 9-11.
Subliminal torture fantasies aside, perhaps he should listen more closely to the Prez he admires and defends so much:
"We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."
Friday, September 15, 2006
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Pittman: Just enough troops in Iraq
Last week, our host chastised frequent Talk News network guest Ellen for claiming that inadequate resources were applied to both the Iraq and Afghan wars.
As 2006 nears its end, we have the right amount of troops in Iraq, Ken said. Afterall, Tommy Franks said so in his July 2003 book 'American Soldier'. Ken said we should not, as many Democrats hawks say, send more troops to aid the stabilization of the country as this would expose more American troops to our enemies. However we should not withdraw troops as, by taking on the "enemy" over there with large numbers of troops, we are keeping them from our shores. Get it??
Like the Zarqawi foolishness, the lauding of the swap of four Canadians for two hundred alleged Taliban, "Al Queda in Bagdhad” , the ABC “Saddam Tapes” nonsense, it is clear that our host is inclined to defend the administration from it critics regardless of the administration’s own statements, or even the truth.
The Ken Pittman show runs daily on WBSM 1420am from 3-5 pm. No podcasts as yet.
As 2006 nears its end, we have the right amount of troops in Iraq, Ken said. Afterall, Tommy Franks said so in his July 2003 book 'American Soldier'. Ken said we should not, as many Democrats hawks say, send more troops to aid the stabilization of the country as this would expose more American troops to our enemies. However we should not withdraw troops as, by taking on the "enemy" over there with large numbers of troops, we are keeping them from our shores. Get it??
Like the Zarqawi foolishness, the lauding of the swap of four Canadians for two hundred alleged Taliban, "Al Queda in Bagdhad” , the ABC “Saddam Tapes” nonsense, it is clear that our host is inclined to defend the administration from it critics regardless of the administration’s own statements, or even the truth.
The Ken Pittman show runs daily on WBSM 1420am from 3-5 pm. No podcasts as yet.
Monday, September 11, 2006
9-11 5 years later
As Richard Clarke and the 9/11 commission make clear [ I've been reading the graphic novel !!!] , the Clinton administration paid great heed to the issue of Islamic terror.
The most notable failure occurred under the Bush administration, the inability to prevent the 9/11 attacks -not unrelated to the new administration's lack of focus on the threat and the dimunition of Clarke and his counter-terror group.
Consider the following:
BUSH: Well those are two different questions, did we fight the wrong war, and absolutely � I have no doubt � the war came to our shores, remember that. We had a foreign policy that basically said, let�s hope calm works. And we were attacked.
Can we not take the above quote as an admission that Bush did not see a real terror threat before 9-11???
We had a foreign policy that basically said, let�s hope calm works. And we were attacked.
This is consistent with Clarke's interpretation of the Bush Whitehouse approach to terrorism After 9/11 Clarke and his team regained much access and resources. Ron Suskind's new book details how the deliberate targeting of Al Queda operatives and operations resumed for a period after 9/11 with many notable successes.
However, the political and ideological payoff from such a war in the shadows was minimal and, before long, resources, time , and effort were focused on the goal of dislodging Saddam Hussein. Ironically, after a decade of efforts aimed at draining the capacity of Al Queda, the Iraq war proved just the shot in the arm that the network needed. Bush, Bin Laden's "indispensable ally," raised the profile of the Al Queda jihad exponentially, effectively replicating the Afghan war which begat Al Queda in the 1980s.
The most notable failure occurred under the Bush administration, the inability to prevent the 9/11 attacks -not unrelated to the new administration's lack of focus on the threat and the dimunition of Clarke and his counter-terror group.
Consider the following:
BUSH: Well those are two different questions, did we fight the wrong war, and absolutely � I have no doubt � the war came to our shores, remember that. We had a foreign policy that basically said, let�s hope calm works. And we were attacked.
Can we not take the above quote as an admission that Bush did not see a real terror threat before 9-11???
We had a foreign policy that basically said, let�s hope calm works. And we were attacked.
This is consistent with Clarke's interpretation of the Bush Whitehouse approach to terrorism After 9/11 Clarke and his team regained much access and resources. Ron Suskind's new book details how the deliberate targeting of Al Queda operatives and operations resumed for a period after 9/11 with many notable successes.
However, the political and ideological payoff from such a war in the shadows was minimal and, before long, resources, time , and effort were focused on the goal of dislodging Saddam Hussein. Ironically, after a decade of efforts aimed at draining the capacity of Al Queda, the Iraq war proved just the shot in the arm that the network needed. Bush, Bin Laden's "indispensable ally," raised the profile of the Al Queda jihad exponentially, effectively replicating the Afghan war which begat Al Queda in the 1980s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
