posted
CIA director George Tenet has resigned. He says he resigned for personal reasons. It was George Tenet who presided over the intelligence debacles that led to 9/11 and he was the man who told baby Bush that proving Iraq's stockpile of WMDs was a "slam dunk." When will Don Rumsfeld know that he is a burden on America and step down as well?
Posts: 449 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It is the beginning of the end for Bush government. Mr. Tenet is only a scapegoat; the real culprits are Cheney, (The first American President with the title of VeePee) Rumsfield, and Mr. Bush with the gap-toothed Lesbian.
Their infamous act is finally catching up with them.
quote:It is the beginning of the end for Bush government. - bababoyz
But not in any way near the fatal end of the nigerian master thief... obasanjo, right? How come no single yoruba have resigned based on their inept incompetence and brazen stealing of public coffers? I hate nigeria as a BIAFRAN hence I stayed put in the U.S. but "bababoyz" who loves his nigeria so much opts to live in Dallas, Texas all in America, what a confused "anu ofia."
The yoruba disease? I guess obasanjo is 'Angel Gabriel' if not then call him the rogue, thief, idiot, fool, rude, WICKED, unqualified, evil, dangerous, conniving, untrustworthy, user, backstabber, CROOK he is and let's not forget ASS HOLE too!!! obasanjo makes bush look like an innocent choir boy so stop your yoruba/bini HYPOCRISY!
We the Igbo know that obasanjo just as bush are equally s.
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2482 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
It is interesting to read some of the posting by these confused men who run to their key board and post trash especially when it has to do with USA, and their internal problems.
Why dont you guys stop, think and then CRY FOR THE SUFFERING MASSES OF BIAFRA/NIGERIA. Nigeria has more problems in their hands than great USA. If your house is on fire you don't chase rat.
Posts: 524 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
What the hell are you talking about? A man without a country is giving us advice. Good gracious!
___________________ "We are where we are in large part at the moment, because our self-identified leaders of thought have put us there."----Ukpabi Asika Posts: 321 | From: Athens, Ohio USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
I wonder what you are still doing in the United States. Since you have this your great country Nigeria, get up and go home. You can't live here and at the same time hate the people sheltering you. Americans are not Igbos, whom you have spent all your life hating.
Posts: 524 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It seems that George Bush is finally getting his act together on this Iraq issue:
1) He prematurely judged the hostilities in Iraq to be over (maybe because of the unprecedented success of the military campaign) and drastically reduced the number of troops in Iraq required to maintain some kind of order. He is gradually increasing the number of troops there.
2) He refused to work with the U.N. It seems that he has swallowed his pride, and is now actively working with the U.N if only to give a measure of legitimacy to the coalition’s efforts there. Infact, Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N envoy is quarter-backing the administration’s efforts at setting up some form of interim government.
3) He initially (by the recommendation of one Ahmed Chalabi) disbanded the Iraqi army and forced even some rather innocent Baathists or Baathist sympathizers underground. He has long since reconsidered that position. He is building up the Iraqi police and army to assume their respective posts and perform their respective roles. In one recent conflict with terrorists and/or resistance militias of the Al-qaeda hue, he sent a former Iraqi general to lead the effort at rooting out these militants.
4) In place of broad-handed massive military assaults on large segments of Iraq, or on suspected havens for insurgents, he has started embracing a more tactical, incisive, or surgical methods to avert inflaming Arab opinions. Analysts may not always agree on how best to deal with these troublesome militants like Moqtada Al Sadr, but nothing can be as counterproductive to US general interests as massively bombing religious holy sites or mosques were these militants might take cover. One cannot afford to underestimate Arab displeasure whenever it comes to suspected desecration of their religion or its places of worship.
5) Initially dissenting voices to the American occupation like Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani were strategically neglected or vilified. Infact, if the Ayatollah had acted in manners that might have betrayed a lust for power, he would have been strategically ‘removed’ (you know what I am hinting at here). Now, it seems that Bush has discovered the importance of the Ayatollah as Iraq’s religious Supreme head, especially the admiration and followership of Iraq’s Shiite majority. It is the recognition of the delicate nature of the Ayatollah authority and what his opposition or endorsement of an issue might entail that has prompted the US to defer to Ali Sistani on some issues, and has consequently rendered Iraq ‘governable’ to some extent.
6) An unqualified, unconditional apology to the Arab world may hardly sit well with ordinary Americans not to talk of the President—because it has the unintended effect of making one’s position seem weak and throws up a lot of questions about the President’s course of action. However, in the face of the atrocities in Abu Ghraib, Bush for all his pomp and pageantry expressed (no matter how mildly), some sort of apology for the disgusting actions on the part of US soldiers. It is definitely the right thing to do. Arab opinions about George Bush may be unfavorable, but they are certainly not set in stone. Actions like that might soften up his European allies who have become estranged with George Bush and his administration(not the US as a whole) ever since the INEPT CIA under George Tenet in collusion with one totally reactionary character called Ahmed Chalabi provided shakable or in some cases, deceitful information that further strengthened the suspicions of the hawks in this administration.
Having said all that, I think that it is only natural that characters that have contributed in one way or the other to the massive disassembling of American strategy for Iraq ( if ever there was an occupation plan that awaited the successful execution of its superb military strategy) would be ‘allowed to go’. I fully expect other resignations to be tendered in the days ahead, and perhaps more should Bush win re-election. One cannot but agree that irrespective of the fervency and patriotism of Donald Rumsfeld, further embarrassing discoveries about his recklessness with the military or his tacit approval of what amounts to human rights abuses in Iraq are veritable conditions to seek his resignation. It cannot be said that he has become indispensable to the United States such that Americans should be expected to bat their eyelids should further damaging expositions revolving around his character and disposition make the rounds.
All in all—the war in Iraq has been greeted by a lot of shadowy variables and great unknowns. It has been worsened by the often brash and HASTY decisions of the president and his inner circle. In fact, his actions are akin to one who, being thoroughly dissatisfied with the fact that it takes ONE(1) woman NINE months to deliver a baby, thought it wise to make a baby in ONE month by impregnating NINE women!
Perhaps, Bush might think he is Reaganesque by his constant repetition of US’s determination to stay the course in fighting terrorism in all its shades, but under the scrutiny of future historians, Bush and his administration (with their policies) might be consigned to the dustbin of History as people who had powerful, persuading convictions about the inherent dangers of terrorism (if left unchecked) but were awfully clueless as to the means of influencing the future political landscape of their dreams/convictions by the actions of their past.
Come November, we shall see whether Bush would have corrected the blunders of this administration sufficiently enough to extract from Americans a vote of confidence for a second term.
N.B—they have captured Al Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist responsible for a number of crimes in Iraq including but not limited to the decapitation of Nick Berg. Another Al-qaeda big wig bites the dust. Pray tell, when will they focus on the radical Nigerian version of this terrorist group that attracts great sympathies or even followership in the North and Middle Belt states?
quote:N.B—they have captured Al Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist responsible for a number of crimes in Iraq including but not limited to the decapitation of Nick Berg. Another Al-qaeda big wig bites the dust.
Pray tell, when did the capture take place? Abi na Biafran propaganda? Some links please! This morning an Iraqi traitor, Kubba, was executed, Zarqawi style, for working with the illegal occupiers.
Posts: 449 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Fellows, The issue is not one fellow called Zaqarwi. The LARGER QUESTION is what are the Americans looking for in Iraq and who madated them to "liberate" the Iraqis. As long as that question has not being addressed, the Americans and their puppets will never know peace in Iraq nor in any part of the world.
The days we are fed with the terrorists that or the terrorists this is long gone. The issue those who care for true universal peace and harmony ought to adddress is what the circumstance/s breeds these "terrorists"?
The fact that we Africans have a unique way of making our case without blood-letting does not mean that the west should expect everyone from every part of the world to do same. If you ask me, I would say that the Arabs (for all their faults) are matching western economic TERRORISM (exploitation) with their brand of resistance; which the Bushes call terrorism. Afteral, one man's terrorist may as well be another man's freedom fighter.
BTW, has anyone imagined what would have happned if the Americans would have gone into Iraq without the outcry we witnessed and still witness around the world? You bet Iran, Libya, North Korea and even Cuba would have followed suit. Now tell, what is the difference between Hitler's appetite to "conquer" the world from Bush's dream of wanting everyone around the world to think, reason, eat, wear and behave American? Bottomline: terrorism (be it economic or otherwise) breeds physical terrorism. And we all know the cure. Or dont we?
Posts: 997 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Efulefu Smash]](graemlins/efulefusmash.gif)
s.
