BENAZIR BHUTTO ASSASSINATED

How much are we going to let Pervez Musharraf get away with? He has used the "fear of terrorism" to bolster his dictatorship, all the while justifying terrorism of which he approves and pampering terrorists in his own western frontiers.

Bhutto's supporters hold dictator Musharraf responsible:

Bhutto's supporters at the hospital wept, smashed the glass doors and started fires around the hospital periphery. Some were heard to shout "dog, Musharraf, dog" and "killer Musharraf".

So does Rehman Malik:

Malik, Bhutto's security adviser, immediately questioned the adequacy of protection for the former PM.

"We repeatedly informed the government to provide her proper security and appropriate equipment including jammers, but they paid no heed to our requests," he said.

So do I. And I also hold US President George W. Bush responsible for allowing a supporter of terrorism, a man who aids and abets terrorists, an anti-democratic dictator to remain in power while at the same time mouthing meaningless shibboleths about "freedom on the march" and "with us or agin' us..."

But, come on, we know that was all bullshit. Musharraf, a dictator who stole power in a coup, who fired his entire supreme judiciary, who imposed martial law, who jailed dissidents, and at the same time released terrorists from jail, is still in power. The Taliban still enjoys safe haven in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is probably there too. But Saddam's Iraq -- which had nothing to do with 9/11, which was anathema to al Qa'ida, and which, at the very least, was stable -- is "liberated."

How much longer does the world have to put up with this?

After Blocking Transmissions of 3 TV Stations, Musharraf Puts Hundreds of Political Activists in Prison

An Update on "The Good Guys"^TM, America's Asian Allies in the (so-called) "War on Terror"

After blocking the transmissions of the three major television stations in Pakistan, unelected coup-leader and dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf has had hundreds of political activists of opposition parties thrown in jail in Punjab province.

Siddiqul Farooq, a spokesman for the Pakistan Muslim League of former prime minister Sharif Nawaz said that authorities have been raiding homes of activists since last night and have arrested many people. He said that he are trying to ascertain how many exactly, but information available points out that it could be nearly a thousand.

The arrests were aimed at preventing party workers from turning out for the suspended Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary's planned June 16 visit to Faisalabad, Farooq said adding "The Government is feeling threatened by the public response to the Chief Justice."

Are you following this? The arrests were not at some protest that turned violent. The arrests took place before any protest or rally even began. These are the "good guys," shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States of America, standing up for democracy and freedom.

What has happened to us?

The Difference Between Musharraf and Chavez

An Update on the "New Axis of Evil"^TM
An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM
An Update on the "Worst President in US History"^TM

I don't know if this is funny or sad. I know I'm disturbed by it.

In case you haven't heard, the "liberal" mainstream US media are having a field day with the Venezuelan government's refusal to renew the license of a broadcast network -- RCTV -- whose owner, Marcel Granier, was implicated in the economic sabotage of 2003 as well as the 2003 coup against President Hugo Chavez. When the coup failed due to overwhelming democratic opposition and Chavez was returned to power, Granier's RCTV and the other commercial stations ran old Hollywood movies and cartoons.

RCTV was not "shut down" by Chavez -- the twice-democratically elected and legitimate President of Venezuela. The Venezuelan government refused to renew their license because, well, they simply weren't serving the public interest. If Bob Wright and NBC's parent company, General Electric, conspired to overthrow a US President, would it be wrong to refuse to renew licenses?

So Condoleezza Rice wagged her finger at Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro today over Venezuela's refusal to renew RCTV's license. She told a meeting of the Organization of American States in Panama that

Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience are not a thorn in the side of government. Disagreeing with your government is not unpatriotic and most certainly should not be a crime in any country, especially a democracy.

The irony is delicious. Freedom of speech is GREAT if it is pro-global, unregulated, laissez faire, (so-called) "free-market" capitalist speech. If it is anti-global, unregulated, laissez faire, (so-called) "free-market" capitalist speech, then, well, whatever. Maybe it's okay. Whatever. Maybe it's un-American. I don't know. Whatever. And disagreeing with your government is GREAT if your government is trying to regulate the effects of capitalism within society. If you happen to think that an invasion of a sovereign state who had not threatened you and posed no threat -- immediate or otherwise -- to you, and which invasion was based on lies and probably illegal according to international law is a bad thing, well, whatever. You're probably a communist or something.

So I find it interesting that the "liberal" mainstream US media are not jumping all over the fact that our "ally" in Pakistan, the anti-democratic dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has updated an ordinance that gives him the power to have any building shut down if HE believes an illegal transmission is being aired, and gives him the power to cancel the license of any TV channel he chooses. Oh, and did I mention that the government was already blocking the transmission of the three leading TV stations in Pakistan, because they have been covering the civil unrest surrounding Musharraf's firing of the Chief Justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court?
Why are we supporting this guy? And this is not a Republican/Democrat thing, either. Even the Democrats in the US support Musharraf. No, this is another conflict between global, unregulated, laissez faire, (so-called) "free-market" capitalism, and anything else. It might be directed against Socialism, sure. But it is just as much directed against the kind of capitalism that was practiced in the United States from the time of the New Deal until the trickle-down, supply-side, de-regulated Reagan years.

This is why the late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II called Soviet Communism and unregulated Capitalism morally equivalent evils.

Meanwhile, the man that George W. Bush said was America's most wanted, the man Bush said we'd get "dead or alive" before he flip-flopped and decided he wasn't really very much interested in him, the man who was behind the most brutal attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor, Osama bin Laden, is alive and well and living in Pakistan, according to the Taliban. Under the protection, no doubt, of Pervez Musharraf.

What has happened to this country I love so much? Why are we not clamoring in the streets to

IMPEACH GEORGE W. BUSH???

A Clearer View of Iraq

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

Our mainstream mass media are serving us poorly, and it doesn't really matter if your politics makes you see them as "corporate media" or as "liberal media" (an idea, I must admit, that I've found laughable and unsupported for a quarter of a century, during which time I spent nearly two decades working at NBC News -- vapid, shallow, obnoxiously self-righteous, yes. Liberal, no). What everyone seems to agree upon, however, is just what a terrible job our mainstream mass media are doing informing us about the world.

That's a start. I hope we can accelerate this process a bit, because people are dying, and we need to know about it so we can do something about it.

To that end I will tell you about a new report, Accepting Realities in Iraq by Gareth Stansfield of Britain's Chatham House (one of the world's leading organizations for the analysis of international issues) and the University of Exeter.

The report argues that US policy in Iraq must change to face a number of realities to which the Bush administration has been blind up until now. Among these realities, the report claims that(emphases mine):

• There is not ‘a’ civil war in Iraq, but many civil wars and insurgencies involving a number of communities and organizations struggling for power. The surge is not curbing the high level of violence, and improvements in security cannot happen in a matter of months.
• The conflicts have become internalized between Iraqis as the polarization of sectarian and ethnic identities reaches ever deeper into Iraqi society and causes the breakdown of social cohesion.
• Critical destabilizing issues will come to the fore in 2007–8. Federalism, the control of oil and control of disputed territories need to be resolved.
• Each of Iraq’s three major neighbouring states, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, has different reasons for seeing the instability there continue, and each uses different methods to influence developments.
• These current harsh realities need to be accepted if new strategies are to have any chance of preventing the failure and collapse of Iraq. A political solution will require engagement with organizations possessing popular legitimacy and needs to be an Iraqi accommodation, rather than a regional or US-imposed approach.

This all jibes pretty closely with a recent Speigel interview with Stephen Biddle, Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, former Professor of National Security Studies at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, and respected military historian.

Biddle told der Speigel that the war we're fighting in Iraq is not an insurgency at all:

...the classical strategy for waging counter insurgency is oriented around winning hearts and minds. You engage in a process of political reform in which you introduce democracy to make the government's ideas legitimate. You engage in a campaign of economic development assistance. And you try and train an indigenous military to wage the war. All those strategies are what the Bush Administration's approach to Iraq has been. They make some sense, if the problem you are trying to solve is a classical ideological insurgency. Except, Iraq is not.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What is then?

Biddle: It's a communal civil war in which the war is not fought over a set of ideas. Rather, it is about the survival and self interest of communal groups within the nominal state. Sunnis are not fighting for an idea of what's best for all Iraqis; they are not trying to persuade Shiites that a Sunni government would be good for them. They are fighting for the self interest of Sunnis against the self interest of Shiites -- and vice versa. Because it is not a war of ideas you cannot expect to win it by changing people's minds. It's a war of identity. Identities can't change in the way minds can.

You know, you have to fight the war you've got, not the war you wish you had. And we should be fighting a real war on terror, not doing our part to further Al Qa'ida's goals. To wit: Michael Jacobson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy points out that while the Bush administration's "Iraq policy" (if it can be called that) in the past has conformed to the classic insurgency approach, resulting in a 25% increase in casualties between 2005 and 2006, a new approach might be presenting itself> Citing the State Department's annual report on global terrorism developments, Country Reports on Terrorism 2006, Jacobson observes that (my emphases):

While the United States still must eliminate the leadership of terrorist organizations, the report notes that "incarcerating or killing terrorists will not achieve an end to terrorism." According to the report, one of the most important and challenging aspects of combating terrorism is "addressing the underlying conditions that terrorists exploit," which include "geo-political issues, lack of economic opportunity and political participation, ethnic conflict, ungoverned space, or political injustice."

Sounds like a good idea to me. It ought to, since those of you who read this blog know I've been saying this for years. Those of you who know me even longer than I've been blogging know that this is something I've been saying since the late 1990s.

As for that "ungoverned space" mention in the State Department's report, has anyone been looking at Pakistan lately? As I've mentioned to Howie, when we are hit again by terrorists, the attack is more likely to come from Pakistan than anywhere else.

Brit Anti-Terror Chief : "We Will Be Hit Again"

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

Peter Clarke, chief of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism unit and consequently Britain's de facto "anti-terrorism czar" (for some reason, we love "czars" in the US), warns that al Qa'ida, far from being beaten in the fields of Iraq, has survived “a prolonged multi-national assault” and is following “an inexorable trend towards more ambitious and more destructive attack planning.” More simply and poignantly put, “The only sensible assumption is that we shall be attacked again,” Clarke said Tuesday evening. He was presenting a lecture to the Policy Exchange, a British center-right private policy research group.

He also confirmed another fact with which we in the West had better come to terms: Pakistan's dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf has no control over his country and, far from being an "ally" in the (so-called) "war on terror," should be arrested and prosecuted following on George W. Bush's logic that "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."

He also said around 100 suspected terrorists were awaiting trial in Britain — in addition to several trials currently in progress — and their cases would confirm a trend that has emerged since 2004 for young British Muslims to travel to Pakistan for training and to receive instructions before returning home to plot attacks.

Perhaps if we weren't in Iraq, and if we weren't ignoring Afghanistan, and if we weren't buddying up to (yet again!!!) right-wing military dictators in countries that harbor terrorists, and funding Pakistani terror groups that kidnap and execute Iranians, we might actually be harassing al Qa'ida and damaging their ability to plan and execute future attacks.

But not in George W. Bush's America.

IN THE DARK Post #1,001-- Philippine Chief Justice Says War on Terror in Danger of Becoming "Mindless"; Poor Suffer More From Poverty Than From Terror

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno joins a long list of global public figures who stepped out of the dark and acknowledged the reality of terrorism, including Peter Munya, the US Conference of Catholilc Bishops, John Edwards, Hugo Chavez, Fernando Lugo, Desmond Tutu, Charles Dickens, Muhammed Yunus, myself, and even Pakistan dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf who have been saying that you can't win a war on terror if you don't fight a war on poverty. For the record, the late Holy Father Pope John Paul II believed this too.

Puno criticized the "mindless" war on terrorism at the expense of civil liberties, and -- referring to the Philippines, but relevant to the US under the Bush administration -- said a state with credibility problems could not adequately protect the rights of its citizens. He said the fight against terrorism had been "more discomforting" than the terror itself.

Terrorism is terrible enough, but the mindless, knee-jerk reaction to extirpate the evil is more discomforting. One visible result of the scramble to end terrorism is to take legal shortcuts and legal shortcuts always shrink the scope of human rights. These shortcuts have scarred the landscape of rights in the Philippines.

Puno said that the institutional forces of anti-terrorism engage in much flag-waving, singing of the national anthem and issuing "high-pitched" directives to military forces, the police, and citizens to use their weapons for victory at all costs. But, he said, enough is enough. Security is meaningless at the expense of individual liberty.

To put constitutional cosmetics to the military-police muscular efforts, lawmakers usually enact laws using security of the state to justify the dimunition of human rights by allowing arrests without warrants; surveillance of suspects; interception and recording of communications; seizure or freezing of bank deposits, assets and records of suspects. They also redefine terrorism as a crime against humanity and the redefinition is broadly drawn to constrict and shrink further the zone of individual rights.

Puno urged political leaders -- but the appeal might be read by all of us, if we choose -- to have a broader view of terrorism, saying poverty is also a form of terrorism and the poor suffer more by their poverty than by violence.

In poor countries, it is poverty that truly terrorizes people for they are terrorized by the thought that they will die because of empty stomachs and not that they will lose their lives due to some invisible suicide bombers...The apathy of those who can make a difference is the reason why violations of human rights continue to prosper. The worst enemy of human rights is not its non-believers but the fence sitters who will not lift a finger despite their violations...Sooner or later, they will find that they who default in protecting the rights of the many will end up without rights like the many...With the incursions and threats of incursion to our human rights at this crucial moment in our history, the clarion call to each one of us is to consecrate our lives to the great cause of upholding our human rights.

France Told CIA in January 2000 About Al Qa'ida Plans to Hijack Airliners

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

French newspaper Le Monde adds more fuel to the fire by publishing a story saying that they warned the CIA about al Qa'ida intentions to hijack airplanes nine months before the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The newspaper says it has obtained 328 pages of classified documents that show foreign agents infiltrated al-Qaeda's network.

It produced nine reports between September 2000 and August 2001, including the January 2001 document called 'Plan to hijack an aircraft by Islamic radicals'.

That's reminiscent of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." Good Lord, how many dots do you have to draw in a straight line before it occurs to George W. Bush's administration to connect them???

Le Monde said the January 2001 report was handed over to a CIA operative in Paris, but that no mention of it was made in the official US September 11 Commission which produced its findings in July 2004.

Why was that? Don't we deserve an explanation?

Le Monde said the documents also show the French believed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was still receiving help from family members and senior officials in Saudi Arabia in advance of the 11 September attacks.

Yes. Like Pakistan's dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Saudis are our allies.

God help us.

Musharraf, Back Against the Wall, Calls on Developed World to Fight Poverty

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the dictator "President" of Pakistan (who created the position of President -- not in the Pakistan Constitution -- after taking power in a military coup in 1999), is beginning to make some democratic and egalitarian noises -- for reasons, I am sure, of base self-interest. Simply stated, he is in trouble. He is losing control of his increasingly independent-minded judiciary, he is losing whatever support he has ever had of the citizens of Pakistan, and he is losing the confidence of the West. At least he's got the military. But it may not be enough. He is being forced into a set of elections at the end of the year, and looking to two political rivals to shore up his power: Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto.

Whatever his motivation (and I don't really care why someone finally does the right thing), Musharraf is making guardedly centrist statements lately, and yesterday in Islamabad finally stated the obvious and made the connection between terrorism and poverty. Speaking to an international land forces symposium on Common Security and the "Global War on Terrorism,"

President Musharraf urged the developed and industrialized States to help the Islamic countries in their socio-economic development as the extremism stems from poverty.

The President re-emphasized Pakistan's firm resolve to combat terrorism frontally and militarily but said that joint efforts were needed by the global community in achieving the objective of defeating the menace. He pointed out that extremism is a state of mind and could not be countered with force and needs a long-term strategy and total understanding of underlined causes which spawn the scourge.

Let me repeat and emphasize that last part: Terrorism is a state of mind that cannot be countered with force and needs a long-term strategy and total understanding of its underlying causes.

So, we're stepping back from global, unregulated, laissez faire, "free-market" capitalism, and --FINALLY -- acknowledging that government has a larger role than merely smoothing the road for the creation of wealth. It also has the responsibility to see that the wealth is distributed equitably and justly. Well, at least Musharraf -- back against the wall -- is giving the idea lip service, even if he'd rather not. Why would he prefer not to say -- and do -- the right thing?

The President said that the poverty, illiteracy and misinterpretation of Islamic knowledge are the other inherent causes contributing to the rise of extremism.

Yes. Pakistan has only a 48% literacy rate -- 35% female literacy. Perhaps Musharraf will funnel some money into educating Pakistan's citizens? A quarter of Pakistan lives below the poverty level -- the Pakistani poverty level. Child labor is common there. Pakistan has a per capita gross domestic product of $2,600. To put that into perspective, Iraq -- in the midst of a bloody civil war, mounting insurgency, and daily chaos, has a per capita GDP of $2,900.

For the life of me, I don't know why -- if we had to invade someone and do some "regime change -- we invaded Iraq and not Pakistan.

(Musharraf) said two-pronged strategy on the one hand calls upon the Muslim States to shun extremism and go on the path of socio-economic development and on the other called upon the West, especially the United States , to help resolve outstanding disputes and assist in economic development of Islamic countries. (my emphasis)

Like it or not, folks, we are our brothers' keeper. From those to whom much is given, much is expected.

Musharraf joins a long list of global public figures who stepped out of the dark and acknowledged the reality of terrorism, including Peter Munya, the US Conference of Catholilc Bishops, John Edwards, Hugo Chavez, Fernando Lugo, Desmond Tutu, Charles Dickens, Muhammed Yunus, and myself qho have been saying that you can't win a war on terror if you don't fight a war on poverty. For the record, the late Holy Father Pope John Paul II believed this too.

Pakistan PM : To Fight Terror, Work For Justice

Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told a gathering at Pakistan's National Defence University Wednesday that terrorism could only be ended by resolving the root problems that cause it, not by "shock and awe" warfare.

There must be respect for human rights and fundamental freedom because the denial of justice, torture, humiliation and collateral damage can only be counterproductive.

We need to adopt a holistic approach to address a conflict situation by providing hope and opportunity to the people, engaged in reconstruction and rehabilitation and provide employment opportunities.

We must remove all hurdles and obstacles to development programmes, especially in conflict situations.

He suggested a comprehensive, "Marshall Plan"-type program, where those people most effected are given a stake in their own development.

Meanwhile, Dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf's difficulties have provided an opening for a pre-coup Prime Minister. Benazir Bhutto has announced she will return to Pakistan sometime this year, despite threats to her safety, from the government as weel as from terrorists.

I realise I can be arrested. I realise that like the assassination of Philippines Senator Benigno Aquino in Manila in August 1983, I can be gunned down on the airport tarmac when I land. After all, Al-Qaida has tried to kill me several times, why would we think they wouldn't try again as I return from exile to fight for the democratic elections they so detest?

But I do what I have to do, and I am determined to return to fullfil my pledge to the people of Pakistan to stand by them in their democratic aspirations.

Al Qaida terrorist bomber Ramzi Yusef, one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, and a man with longstanding ties to the Pakistan intelligence services, ISI, allegedly made several attempts on Bhutto's life in the a993 Pakistan election campaign.

Meeting with her formal rival -- now ally against Musharraf -- Nawaz Sharif, she told the former Prime Minister that she made no deal with Musharraf to guarantee her safety on her return. Musharraf has called for "elections" soon, but has barred both Bhutto and Sharif.

ABC : US Sponsors Terror Group in Pakistan

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

According to a report from ABC News, the US is aiding, advising, and -- through a network of Iranian exiles throughout Europe and the Gulf states -- funding a group that is crossing the border into Iran and kidnapping and executing Iranians.

The Jundullah is led by Abd el Malik Regi who has maintained close ties with the CIA since 2005. ABC News terrorism consultant and senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Centre Alexis Debat describes Regi:

He is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera. He used to fight with the Taliban. He’s part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist.

This is the latest in a number of suspicious circumstances involving our "new best friend," Pakistan, led by despotic tyrant and dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Those circumstances center on Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, the CIA, Osama bin Laden, and the Taliban, once allies in the jihad against Soviet occuption of Afghanistan, all living quite comfortably now in Pakistan.

The situation mirrors the circumstances of Latin America in the 1980s. Proxy wars against left wing governments and guerilla armies were funded through back-channels contacts (Saudi Arabia for one) and drug smuggling (via our friends in Colombia). The same thing seems to be happening today, with the CIA using its back-channel contacts, and the likelihood of profits from the sale and processing of Afghanistan's record opium-poppy harvests going to groups like the Jundullah.

Winning the hearts and minds of the east to "freedom and democracy?" It doesn't seem so. The word on the Afghan street is "We want the Taliban back."

What a Wonderful World?

Trees of green? Red roses too? For some perhaps, but not me and you. Like everything else in George W. Bush's "wonderful world," the trees of green, the red roses, the skies of blue, the stars of white, bright blessed days and the dark sacred nights are distributed unequally and unfairly.

More than 3,000 Americans are dead, and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in a war that was absolutely unnecessary. We have accomplished nothing in Iraq other than to create a breeding ground for new terrorists. Meanwhile, we have allowed al Qa'ida to regain strength under the protection of our "ally" in the so-called war on terror, Pervez Musharraf.

Nuclear weapons have proliferated across the globe under Bush's watch. So, naturally, we are going tomanufacture more, newer nukes. You'd almost think that the Bush administration might have turned a blind eye to the spread of nukes, just so we could build new ones. After all, it was our "ally" Pervez Musharraf's man, AQ Khan, who shared nuclear secrets with both North Korea and Iran.

Sweat shop globalization has proceeded unabated under Bush. We have far more evidence of the spread of sweatshops in the last six years than the spread of Democracy. The gap between rich and poor nations, as well as the gap between the richest and poorest within individual nations -- including the United States -- has grown under Bush. For the first time in my lifetime, poverty is on the rise in the United States, both in proportion and number of Americans living below the poverty line.

Our reputation has sunk to unprecedented lows across the world. Our Constitution is in tatters. Our American values have been trampled at home. Politics trumps law. Democratic principles are becoming, like the Geneva Conventions, "quaint" and "obsolete."

Want a wonderful world?

IMPEACH BUSH!!!

Al Qa'ida Thrives in Musharraf's Pakistan

For as long as I've been posting on this blog, I've been saying that the war in Iraq is taking away from the actual war on terror. Lately, the mainstream media have been forced to ackowledge the obvious. At the same time, this unnecessary invasion and occupation -- so pitifully led by the Bush administration -- has given al Qa'ida its first foothold in Iraq. The CIA said this as early as January 2005 (see also here, here, here, and here). Now, the MSM again are scratching their heads as the resurgence of al Qa'ida continues in Pakistan, five years after we "beat" the Taliban and declared "victory" in Afghanistan.

The new leaders rose from within the organization after the death or capture of the operatives that built Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. This has led to surprise and dismay within U.S. intelligence agencies about the group's ability to rebound from an American-led offensive.

Perhaps if we had maintained that offensive pressure -- and exerted some pressure on the likes of Pakistan's dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf -- instead of bailing out to fight an unnecessary war in Iraq, we wouldn't be feeling all this "surprise" and "dismay."

The evidence officials said was accumulating about (ascending terrorist leader Abu Ubaidah al-)Masri and a handful of other Al Qaeda figures has led to a reassessment within the U.S. intelligence community about the strength of the group's core in Pakistan's tribal areas, and its role in some of the most significant terrorism plots of the last two years, including the airline plot and the suicide attacks in London in July 2005 that killed 56 people.

So al Qa'ida has survived the "American-led offensive" (which included the "fumbled" opportunity at Tora Bora) in Afghanistan, they have a safe haven in Pakistan, and --SURPRISE!!! -- they have gained a foothold in Iraq.

Experts say they still see Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as largely independent of Al Qaeda's hub in Pakistan but that they believe the fighting in Iraq will produce future al Qaeda leaders. "The jihadis returning from Iraq are far more capable than the mujahedeen who fought the Soviets ever were," said Robert Richer, who was associate director of operations in 2004 and 2005 for the CIA. "They have been fighting the best military in the world, with the best technology and tactics."

"To say that Al Qaeda was out of business simply because they have not attacked in the U.S. is whistling past the graveyard," said Michael Scheuer, a former head of the bin Laden tracking unit at the CIA. "Al Qaeda is still humming along, and with a new
generation of leaders."

Yes. Thanks to George W. Bush and his friends, like Pakistan dictator Pervez Musharraf.

Bhutto : Musharraf Can't Handle Taliban

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

I had the opportunity to meet former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in May of 2002 at Molloy College's Joseph F. Maher Leadership Forum. She called the United States of America, "a beacon of democracy" in a world of darkness. She laments, however, the Bush administration's strong support -- up until now -- for General Pervez Musharraf, the dictator who took power in a coup d'etat in 1999.

For too long, the international perception has been that Musharraf's regime is the only thing standing between the West and nuclear-armed fundamentalists.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Islamic parties have never garnered more than 13 percent in any free parliamentary elections in Pakistan. The notion of Musharraf's regime as the only non-Islamist option is disingenuous and the worst type of fear-mongering.

The US has made mistakes before, as described here. We tend to prefer Capitalist dictatorships over democratic, Socialist governments. As long as we keep giving lip service to "democracy" while actually fighting only to make the world safe for un-regulated, laissez faire, "free-market" capitalism, we're going to keep making mistakes, we're going to keep alienating the rest of the world, we're going to keep making enemies, and we're going to remain a target for terrorism.

The West has been shortsighted in dealing with Pakistan. When the United States aligns with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, it compromises the basic democratic principles of its foundation -- namely, life, liberty and justice for all. Dictatorships such as Musharraf's suppress individual rights and freedoms and empower the most extreme elements of society. Oppressed citizens, unable to represent themselves through other means, often turn to extremism and religious fundamentalism.

Restoring democracy through free, fair, transparent and internationally supervised elections is the only way to return Pakistan to civilization and marginalize the extremists. A democratic Pakistan, free from the yoke of military dictatorship, would cease to be a breeding ground for international terrorism.

Musharraf should go. NOW.