Yeah HK at least our enemies get cash for "rebuilding"

The Following were involved in 911:-
The MOSSAD, the ISI , the CIA , and elements of the MAFIA.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm

I'm reposting this. Again the Mujahedin were not the Taliban. The Taliban were too young to fight during the time of the Soviets.

kivals,
I thought about the point you made myself. The precedent set by the Bush presidency is troubling. Perhaps with solid majorities in both houses, the Democrats wouldn't be so timid in their opposition and would hold the line at least against any extreme right nominees to the Supreme Court. At any rate, I believe WT's point was that even if a McCain presidency would mean a continuation of the "war on terror" as we know it, the Obama/Brzezinski foreign policy direction would represent something much more dangerous.

dcb
a Taliban by any other name would be the mujahadeen that formed in Afghanistan under the direction of the CIA and was made up of foreign fighters like OBL allied with some local warlords. I am not arguing with you on technical points. I was only saying that the CIA are the ones who started this whole mess in the region. We usually make a mess of countries we poke our noses into, so insha'Allah our next President will focus on the mess at home before we tell others how to live.

Hello Outsider. I'm married to an Afghan so I know this history better then you do. As for the border its called the Durrand Line. Afghans will never recognize it. Pakistan wants them to. The Taliban came after the Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Civil War and were funded by Pakistan. Taliban had nothing to do with the Soviets.

broken robot,

You wrote:

Tarpley believes that McCain winning the presidency along with democrats increasing their majorities in the house and senate might be the lesser evil in this year's election cycle. The resulting divided and gridlocked government being preferable to a united government moving rapidly in the wrong direction.

Does Tarpley argue, or do you argue, that a President McCain will not follow a dictatorial Bush presidency with a dictatorial McCain presidency? Even with a few more Democrats in Congress, will it really make a difference in power struggles over foreign policy, when a Republican-dominated Supreme Court will be sure to stand behind the assertions of authority, particularly in the foreign affairs arena, of a Republican president?

A conflicted US government that is paralyzed in the making and implementation of foreign policy by political in-fighting would be ideal, but that seems like a pipe dream given recent history.

Hello dcbeltway! Wake up and smell the coffee! This area of the world is made up of tribes or clans. They existed before the Imperial Powers designated borders in the region. The various tribes live on both sides of the border. Of course in the pre 9/11 world and the pre 1988 world, the Taliban was funded, armed and directed by the CIA to get the Soviets out of the area. Mr. Bin Laden was one of our biggest allies at the time - that's when Rummy was shaking hands with Saddam. But then Mr. Bin Laden went rogue because he realized that the U.S.of A. was just using him as a tool to increase its power in his homeland as well as in Afghanistan. Now, in the post 9/11 world we are trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. One of the few things I agree on with Rev. Wright was that the chickens did indeed come home to roost. That was after the terrorists bit the hand that fed them.

US Vilifies Faithful Old Ally

Faithful ally my arse? With friends like Pakistan who needs enemies especially given Pakistan's training and funding of the Taliban against Afghanistan and Kashmiri seperatists against India.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm

"Washington D.C., August 14, 2007 - A collection of newly-declassified documents published today detail U.S. concern over Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban during the seven-year period leading up to 9-11. This new release comes just days after Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, acknowledged that, "There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil." While Musharraf admitted the Taliban were being sheltered in the lawless frontier border regions, the declassified U.S. documents released today clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself."

I love when CD progresives identify friends and for on the international stage - you sound just like republicans telling us who is good and bad. meet the new boss - same as the old boss.

If you wish to be Distracted, my friends, please observe this fuzzy ball attached by a string to my finger. Note how it sways. Observe how it spins.

Now, if you'd just paw at it, everything will be perfect.

What? Couldn't get it?

Try pawing at it again, surely it will work this time.

Have Fun,

-matti.

Well,

If America is starting to vilify an old ally, it's about time. Pakistan is really one of the countries that does support international terrorism and I would not argue that the Americans should bomb them like they did in Iraq (another old ally that the American government realized was not a very great ally only about ten years too late), but it is obvious that Pakistan should be in the spotlights and that something needs to be done about this rogue state. The role that the Pakistani Intelligence Agency ISI played in orchestrating 9-11 is already obvious for a number of years, but the Bush Administration preferred to 'keep a valuable ally' than to let justice have its course. Same with the Bin Laden family members that were silently flewn out of the country within a few days after 9-11.
Forget about Iran and focus on the really dangerous countries: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel. These are the countries that really should feel the pressure of a superpower breathing in their neck, but usually the U.S.A. only subsidizes terrorist nations.

I´m hate to say it but I think that we´re beyond ¨Another example of the arrogance and ignorance of this adminstration¨.

I think arrogance and ignorance have nothing to do with it. Nothing short of pure evil can describe the leaders in our world today.

With the new age Hitler on the march and Calderon and Harper swallowing like cheap porn stars I don´t have too much hope for what´s going to happen to this planet.

Rice and gas prices. Mortgage scandals. Land grabs. Blood for Oil. Kill the enemy. War on Terr´ah. Muslim bad. The Shoe Bomber. Free Trade Agreements. Slums. Dying oceans. Marijuana evil. Fags and abortion. Britney Spears. Smears. Freedum isn´t free. Freedom Fries. Pardon Libby. Have mores. And the US, Canada, Mexico and the rest of almost all of the democracies in our world are nothing but phoney false-hope systems that prey on the poor with guns and bombs and fire and hatred and blood and lies and greed and scum bags that do it all and get away with it.

Poet,

From the gist of your post, I take it you have read Webster Tarpley's recent analysis of the US foreign policy shift away from the neocons' war on terror approach and toward antagonistc relations with Russia and China.

For those not familiar with him, Tarpley believes, among other things, that secret deals are being cut with Iran to allow them to keep their nuclear enrichment. He says that with a Zbig-led foreign policy regime, the US will strengthen ties with Iran in order to use them as a pawn against Russia and that Pakistan will be attacked and destabilized (there have already been US airstrikes inside Pakistan) mainly because they are an ally of China. Further, Tarpley believes the neocon agenda is dead in the water and that Bush and Cheney are basically in quarantine until the end of their administration.

In conclusion, Tarpley believes that McCain winning the presidency along with democrats increasing their majorities in the house and senate might be the lesser evil in this year's election cycle. The resulting divided and gridlocked government being preferable to a united government moving rapidly in the wrong direction. I don't know if his analysis is correct or not. I guess if Iran is bombed in the next few months, we will know he was wrong.

4thfuture -- "Attacking Pakistan would unleash incalculable horrors but that doesn't stop the talk and may not stop the actions, especially if we aren't aware of what's at stake."

I fully and totally agree with you. However I think the U.s. should use its extensive influence it has with the Pakistani Army and help dismantle the ISI. This can definitely be done, firstly by choking off the funds ($$$$$) and secondly by choking out Musharrafs and the Army's hold on Pakistani civil society. the Pakistani people left to themselves, and i strongly believe this, left to themselves they will voluntarily root out the ISI and fix their own society. We need to enable that by providing unbending support to the Pakistani electoral and political processes.

4thefuture--

It's not about Pakistan--it's about the growing Chinese influence westward, China's inability to be so easily bullied, Chinese nuclear muscle, and China's inperturbability about the thought of having to use such that animates such nonsense as is now being regarded towards Pakistan by both candidates and their handlers.

Absent some 911 type casus belli it won't happen all at once, but that is the direction very powerful and important people are trying to flow such events. Neocons are out, Trilaterals and Bilderbergers are back in ascendancy and you, I, and the rest of humanity don't matter to them (except as objects to control).

Cromerovich is right about the RIGHT-wing whackjob Harper. His IQ may be a point or two higher than Bush, but it is only in being crafty with the ongoing destruction of Canada as a civil society (still a little more civil than the USA since Republican types have not been quite so dominant, Harper is making up for lost time attacking civil rights, freedom of speech,the Arts,the environment,the Godless/whatever, and so on as per the Repulsive Republican/Conservative playbook).
So, we have Bush-lite shit up here, lighter does NOT mean better, only that it takes a little longer to drown in it- still has the same great smell (like PROFIT when PROFIT is ALL that matters).
Harper will likely push up the volume on Pakistan, as soon as he gets his orders, as soon as somebody tells him where it is relative to The TAR SANDS, really his only reason for being a politician apart from DESTRUCTION- you can smell that too.

I do think that in spite of the criticism of Eric Margolis's, sycophantic relationship to ISI, he has brought up a topic well worth serious consideration, that is what the future might hold given the talk of attacking/invading Pakistan.

One thing is that Pakistan, however you might regard it, will, when push comes to shove, not take the steps demanded of it by the US which are tantamount to national suicide.

Two, Pakistan has had elections, as close to democratic as is likely under the existing circumstance. Taking action against it, after putting up with the military dictatorship of Musharaf for so many years, will truly be seen to be taking aim at the people of Pakistan for not being compliant puppets following the dictates of the US.

Three, if the US makes it clear that it considers Pakistan no longer to be an ally, but an active enemy, then that turns some nukes into "loose cannons."

If getting into Afghanistan with no way out was a mistake, and we can't leave Iraq because of the "chaos" caused by the ethnic fighting, then taking on a nuclear-armed Pakistan as well, whether integrated or whirling apart into separate pieces, would be a complete disaster.

(Disclaimer: I have more than 30 first cousins in Pakistan whose parents fled India during Partition. There are millions of such muhajirs in Pakistan, who constitue a significant percentage in many of the large cities in Sindh and Punjab, two likely break-away provinces. Given the heightened nationalism/ethnicism that happens during such times, millions of these, muhajirs would be at risk once again.) Attacking Pakistan would unleash incalculable horrors but that doesn't stop the talk and may not stop the actions, especially if we aren't aware of what's at stake.

Interesting. I think we should always be careful when dealing with someone, like Eric, who finds open doors in high places.

I used to watch Eric on TVO (TV Ontario), when, with others, he would comment on politics and developments around the world. Most of us didn't mind him, which isn't to say we always agreed with him.

However, The Toronto Sun is a rightwing rag and not a serious paper. Although, Serious (mainstream) papers are usually propaganda organs anyway, which isn't to say we can't read them and use them. There are a few good journos out there and they work pretty much everywhere.

What is Common Dreams game plan though? Are it's managers, like it's founders, progressives? I guess we wouldn't want to have too narrow a range of offerings. Intentions. That's what you look at. If you can't determine those, then you need to find a way to. Although I'm far from not happy with Common Dreams at present. It's awesome in fact.

Amen, Kikapooviking!

if everyone would just plant a garden, a bunch of flowers, medicinal herbs, etc., mind our own damn business, and pray for any calamity that will hasten the demise of the human scourge upon this earth...

Who the F thinks Pakistan is our ally? If we call pak our ally, we will need to defend it, support it and care for it like a plant - or like Europe- take you pick. Ally? I wish the people of pakistan well, however I fight for our independence and freefom here - not abroad.

"I was one of the first western journalists invited into ISI headquarters in 1986. ISI's then director, the fierce Lt.- Gen. Akhtar Rahman, personally briefed me on Pakistan's secret role in fighting Soviet occupation of Afghanistan"

Another fawning piece by the western hemispheres greatest Pakistan backer. This old Reagan-era cold warrior was deeply embedded with an assortment of Pakistani dictators. Left to him, Margolis will reinstate another strong Army General in Pakistan, someone who will toe the 'western' line and will 'behave'. South Asian peace is the furthest from this idiots mind. All he cares about is access to corridors of power in Pakistan so that he can continue to write up this drivel.

"Pakistan's historic strategic interests in Afghanistan have been undermined by the U.S. occupation."
What exactly are Pakistan's historic interests in Afghanistan ? The fact is Pakistan is a failed State with nothing cohesive to bind it together. Religion was the supposed singular purpose of Pakistans existence but that reason quickly vanished after the creation of Bangladesh from East Pakistan. Baluchistan would rather break away from Pakistan, just like Sindh. And Punjab would much rather be a part of Indian Punjab. The Waziristans are already out of control. So whats left ?

When his blind support of the ISI is called into question he conveniently falls back into the familiar and convenient 'this is all for oil' argument. how in the world can any sane person support the ISI or their parents the CIA is beyond me.

tarasa August 3rd, 2008 4:02 pm: "The last line of this piece is a strong message to Canada's Harper government, who are patsies to the Bush genocide machine. Why any government would side with Bush is beyond belief."

Harper is an evangelical right-wing theocrat, a firm believer in biblical prophecy that supercedes any notion of sovereignty or loyalty to the people of Canada. He believes in the rapture and that, of course, means supporting both Israel unconditionally and Israel's main supporter (or follower)the USA, plus anything that furthers crusades, wars, global warming, AIDS and other assorted scourges, plagues and pestilences etc. that can facilitate end times.

The question to ask is really more on the lines of why would anyone with any sense vote for him. The reason is that most people, even some of the educated ones are stupid and Harper is cunning and appeals to the stupid vote. He also keeps the theocratic drivers camouflaged but it is there to see with most of his actions. Not all right-wingers are stupid but most stupid people are right-wingers and therein lies the problem.

Bush let the cat out of the bag years ago when he called for a crusade. When the bottom falls out of the world economy, and the social safty net fails to transpire, what do you think is going to happen? You want a paycheck? You want gas for your car or truck? Nobody's just gonna give it to ya for nothin! You got to take it off the muslims by force! Go get em! It's yours by right, by scripture, the chosen ones are on your team too! Yeeee Haaaaaaah!
Harem scarem you christian soilders, marching off to war, losing a few pounds off your dumb asses while your at it.

The US and Europe created Pakistan to used against India and Russia after India gained its independence from Britain. I can see that GOD is forcing the West to dearly pay for this sin. Frankly, I cannot see how the Pakistanis can "tolerate" the rightwing nature of the military fundies running the country. The US and the Europe need to stop giving the fundies our taxpayer money and BUTT OUT !

Araquin,

"What BS! Making the ISI sound like a children's choir, HERE, I can't believe it!"

Yea, I find this article unbelievable too. Pakistan's Intelligence services and Musharraf, the dictator, funded, aided and abetted by the United States and Britain, seem to be given a free ride by Margolis. Bit rich for White House to leak criticisms of the Pakistani Intelligence services. I'm getting fed up with journalists that won't name their sources too and psychological operations planting stories in the corporate media.

This is not the first time that an alleged "US ally" has gotten on the wrong side of the USA with a member of the Bush crime family in the White House. The same thing happened to Panama and its' CIA "asset" gone rogue, Manuel Noriega. Now the stakes have been increased because Pakistan has nukes. What needs to be written here is that the ISI is an independent entity on to itself and mostly beyond the control of the Pakistani state (which is doubtless what some career mucky mucks at the CIA wish was the case for them). The best that can be achieved here is that the American public finally realizes what a dysfunctional multi-ethnic disaster Pakistan truly is.

Tarasa - Why does Harper side with Bush?

Simple.

A whore does not stray far from it's pimp.

The last line of this piece is a strong message to Canada's Harper government, who are patsies to the Bush genocide machine. Why any government would side with Bush is beyond belief.

What BS! Making the ISI sound like a children's choir, HERE, I can't believe it!

This article must have been paid for by Pakistan.

Pakistan has always been THE prime place to have a look at post 9/11! The ISI and part of the military are hand-in-glove with the Pashtuns of the Afghan side, and the Talibans are Pashtuns. The ISI kept the Taliban alive.

This is an incredibly stupid piece. Naive, blue-eyed, gullible, uneducated.

This guy should give up calling himself a journalist.

Curious article.
What is Mr. Margolis saying?
ISI is like the CIA.
It will do the bidding of the Pakistani military/political leadership.
U.S. interests always fluctuate based on short term political goals.
The U.S., like the capitalist system that runs it, has no long term plans or strategy.
God forbid we should talk about looking out seven generationa...

Another example of the arrogance and ignorance of this adminstration.

" Bush angrily asked Pakistan's visiting Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani, "Who's in charge of ISI?" Gilani should have answered truthfully.
"Well, Mr.President thought you would know that one,the "CIA"!

Hmmm...let's see what Bush really wants of its "freind and strategic ally in the war on terror" to do. He wants the government of Pakistan to go to the western border region and kill 15% of its population. This is similar to sending General Custer to wipe out the insurgents in our old western frontier and the results would likely be the same. The only difference is that the Pakistani population would revolt and the Taliban would then have control of the nukes. Mr. Bush just doesn't get it - there is no strictly military solution here and inflicting genocide on their own people has no traction in that part of the world.

US has to thoroughly demonize before they can bomb openly. Killing Osama who is said to be in Pakistan, would help McCain.

The ISI, funded by the US, marches to the tune of the CIA.

Gross Understatement: Murky are the relations and responsibilities between the 3 regional nuclear powers with their billions of people... And the wacko Bush regime doesn't help to stabilize the situation.

Margolis' book: "War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet" is worth the read for background and geography.

Pakistan will be Barack Obama's Iraq--Zbignew Brezhinski has told him so--just wait and see if it doesn't happen. Unlike the Neocons who have the sensibiity of a bully and openly pick on people much smaller than them, Trilateralist Bilderberger types have erotic-diplomatic fantasy dreams of taking on the Russians and Chinese both of whom have real nukes capable of incinerating the US and the will to use them if provoked seriously enough.

To pick up on Overkill's post above, yes we are at war under Bush, yes we will still be at war under either Obama or McSame, yes we will also still have the intel-security establishment shredding our inalienable rights. Anyone still intersted in the 08 election?

We are at war with Pakistan.
We have always been at war with Pakistan.
We will always be at war with Pakistan.
Or was that Eurasia? I'll have to check the Memory Hole...

Poor old George, he's come down with a fit of distemper.

The ISI has links to both the CIA and the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Angence France Presse of Oct. 10 '01 reported that an ISI agent, Saeed Sheikh, made a wire transfer of $100,000 to Mohamed Atta at the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmad, the (then) director of the ISI.This was first reported to the US government by the Indian government.

The scales have fallen from our eyes, and we now see that vile Pakistan is no better than France!

No, wait-- that was pre-Sarkozy. I mean, no better than Britain!

No, strike that. Let me check tomorrow's news, and I'll get back to you.