EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
Popular content
Today's Top News
US General: Afghan Violence to Rise
The military situation in Afghanistan is "likely to get harder before it gets easier", a top-ranking US general has warned, saying violence in the country will rise in the short-term.
Petraeus is the latest US official to go before Congress to defend Obama's new war strategy [AFP] General David Petraeus, who executed the US-led Iraq surge in 2007,
told Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday that he expected
increased Afghan fighting in the spring and the summer.
The US general told the Committee that Afghanistan is no worse condition now than Iraq was when he arrived there two years ago.
"Indeed, the level of violence and number of violent civilian deaths in Iraq were vastly higher than we have seen in Afghanistan," Petraeus said.
"But, achieving progress in Afghanistan will be hard and the progress there likely will be slower in developing than was the progress achieved in Iraq."
But he added the announcement by Barack Obama, the US president, last week of an additional 30,000 US troops, "will over the next 18 months enable us to make important progress".
Tough job
Petraeus is the latest US official to go before Congress to defend Obama's new war strategy.
Al Jazeera's John Terrett said: "Apart from the issue of the 30,000 troops going into Afghanistan, the other key issue that the US congress is obsessing over is corruption within Afghanistan.
"It is really becoming a lot clearer that this is a much more difficult operation that may have been at first thought and is likely to last longer than that magic date of July 11."
All of the additional US forces are expected to be deployed by the summer or autum, aiming to reverse Taliban momentum and allow for a gradual withdrawal starting in July 2011, according to Obama's plan.
Officials, including Petraeus, appear to be bracing the US public for trouble ahead, including rising casualties.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
45 Comments so far
Show AllFor what we are about to receive may we be truly grateful.
Oh for god's sake, when will we recognize that these military monsters are insane and spiritually bankrupt?!! Oh, of course, we're really making progress because we haven't murdered nearly as many civilians in Afghanistan as we have in Iraq, but we can rest assured, now that Obama has ordered the troop surge, that we can expect more violence and more innocent Afghani Women and children to be murdered!!! Oh, and let us not forget that this will heavily increase the recruitment of Islamic extremists and even moderates who are increasingly seeing the necessity of defending their people from the terrorist attacks and occupation from the US military!! The crimes of the US are sure to come home to roost as they already are.....much more to come!!! Well, the US citizens are being 'prepared' and are being 'braced' to accept 'rising casualties' a tragic euphemism for INCREASED MURDERS!!!! Are all of you ready to be embraced and molded to accept the increase in murder, torture, and rape?!!! Are you prepared to keep putting up the money for this state crime spree? All of the US citizenry are responsible for the crimes against humanity that their government is perpetrating against sovereign nations and peoples!!!
I don't know if Petraeus, a so-called General, is inane; but evil? Clearly. He and too many other so-called leaders of the U.S. government regime of corporatism, the corporate oligarchs ruling the government from ..., secretly, behind closed doors, and all of their instrumental servants among political and military "leaders"; now they're all [evil].
While I suppose that this makes them considerably insane, I'm not sure that insanity is technically precise. Evil is! And it's much worse than insane or insanity, for a person can be insane without being evil, at all. Insane people might be difficult to deal with, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the insanity has anything to do with evil.
Our political, military, and corporate "leaders" [are] evil; while we can debate about who is being lead or led, for not all of us are. And their blood-thirsty corporate shareholders and other supporters of the evil reined or reigned are also evil, the witting ones anyway; and the witting ones must definitely include the profiteering shareholders, only the other supporters possibly being insane, only. The shareholders are supporters, but the profiteering kind, and ignorance of the evils the profit from is no excuse for these people. However, some or many, still too many anyway, supporters who don't financially profit, insanely support evil, and insanely refuse to LISTEN to and consider proof that what they're supporting is evil and against everyone's best interests, including their own. Now these latter supporters are insane, and although some of them may also be evil, some may possibly be only insane and miseducated; like since young childhood.
Evil is insane, I suppose; but it's also levels worse than "mere" insanity. And we're talking about evil people or people very wittingly committing evil; if there's any distinction worth noticing or speaking about between these two expressions. I'm not sure that there is such distinction, really; but maybe there's a subtle difference to be noted.
This is a layman's "thumb shot", or view, say; not the view of a philosopher who's given years of serious thought to analysing if there's a real distinction between the two above expressions. Either way, I SEE EVIL.
And any military member of the world's hegemon state(s) who cares to wear medals of so-called honour, bravery, etcetera, like Petraeus does, indicates that he or she does NOT truly understand what real honour, courage, ... are! It's all bs; they're wortheless, though also far worse, medals. They're only for deceiving the public. They really symbolise imperialism, colonialism, and other evils of the "elites".
Real honour? Petraeus and likes possess NONE.
Real courage? Petraeus and likes really possess NONE.
Medals? Petraeus has a breastful. Worthy of note? No; well, except for deserving mockery.
I agree, risingdawn, its quite an insane situation, watching these people paraded in front of us as if we're supposed to view them as somehow "normal".
America will never know peace at home again. When that one nuke goes off in the homeland, it will all come apart. The rich, powerful & mobile will leave, never to return again. No effort will be made to clean up the carnage. (Katrina was nothing compared to what's coming.) The MIC will control their new (once "American) world-wide network of bases & troops from another land or simply off-shore via ships, all overseen from the ultimate high-ground: space.
Most of the regular folks will still be here. And THAT sure as hell, won't be pretty.
Of course I could be wrong. :)
We're not "supposed" to view them as "normal". Instead, we're supposed to view them as courageous, honourable, loyal, etcetera. "Normal" is for ordinary people and these "leaders" are supposed to be perceived as ... well, leaders, above, superior to "normal".
The General is just doing what our rulers (Wall street and the Pentagon--Obama and the Congress being mere lapdogs) want--seeing to it that the oil and gas in the middle east are under US auspices.
General Smedley D. Butler: " I helped to see that Standard Oil went its way unmolested". General betray us is no different just a different time and place.
So far, General Betray-Us is different; he's not honest. Unfortunately for Major Gen. Smedley Butler, while he fortunately became honest, [eventually], it seems to have been only after he retired or resigned (whichever way he concluded with the "service"). Maybe Gen. Betray-Us will do the same? Well, maybe he will; but I think that this is very unlikely. After all, if it was likely, then we'd have the same from many former high-ranking military officials of the U.S., and we don't have this from more than very few; if more than than the one, former USMC MG Smedley Butler. If he's been the sole or among the very few to have spoken out as he finally did, then he certainly and clearly deserves credit for this; NOT a mocking statement like the one you wittingly or unwittingly made about him at least through the inference actually found or readable in your post.
If you have any truthful grievances against Smedley Butler, then you should explain; or you can be written off as just another superficial individual, say. Smedley Butler served for 34 years in the USMC and in several overseas U.S. military "missions" during these many years, but you refer to [nothing] that he actually did specifically wrong during these years. So you're being generalsit and your inference that he's not deserving of no respect for what he at least [eventually] did of good and truthfulness is sort of like lying by omission.
It's always important to back up our criticisms with real references. I regularly use links to articles that I learn of topics or views from, and anyone wanting to know more only needs to refer to these references. But you provide a totally unsupported inference that Smedley Butler and Petraeus are really comparable or analogous and I seriously doubt that they are. Butler may have been guilty of real wrongs, but eventually changed; and I don't expect this to happen with Petraeus.
Butler changed when the Capitalists wanted him to lead a coup on FDR.
No one was ever charged.
What's not to like?
A nice increase in America's Number One export:
An upsurge in violence brought to the (poorest) places on the planet.
The Jews will make more money from Afghanistan than even Christmas! Way to go Joe!
Of course!
Da JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZE!
There are several million Jews in the U.S. Very few of them will make any money from Afghanistan. And many more of them are horrified. What an ugly, racist comment.
"Petraeus is the latest US official to go before Congress to defend Obama's new war strategy [AFPGeneral David Petraeus, who executed the US-led Iraq surge in 2007, told Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday that he expected increased Afghan fighting in the spring and the summer."
Mission Accomplished.
Market rises.
Tribal areas bombed. Societal leaders assassinated.
Business as usual.
it has become even more true today than ever before, the words of Rev Martin Luther King, JR.
"I MUST WITH GREAT SADNESS AND SHAME SAY THAT THE GREATEST PURVEYOR OF VIOLENCE IN THE WORLD TODAY IS MY OWN COUNTRY AND GOVERNMENT".
"WE ARE A NATION OF TECHNOLOGICAL GIANTS AND MORAL MIDGETS"
REVEREND MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
ONE wonders what the US WAR PRESIDENT OBAMA would say to Martin Luther King, Jr - on those words....
he'd probably try to ..uh....try his "noble rhetoric" on Reverend King.......
REverend King worked and died for PEace and Justice for ALL.
Obama works for the American War Industry and Capitalist Exploitation Complex.
both got a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
one deserved it a million times over...the other should be ashamed to even have BEEN named for it and even travel to accept it and use the platform to give his Orwellian Speech that
"WAR IS PEACE".
LEO TOLSTOY - the great Russian Novelist showed the world that there IS a difference between WAR and Peace in his novel
"WAR AND PEACE"...
OBAMA wants to show the world war ..........IS.........Peace.
"ONE wonders what the US WAR PRESIDENT OBAMA would say to Martin Luther King, Jr - on those words...."
I recall Obama's arrogance vis-a-vis the Rev. minister of the parish that Obama was supposedly member of, Rev. J. Wright, over the past couple of years; how the Rev. was right, and how arrogantly, but "politically correctly", Obama publicly reacted.
And I recall that Obama has adopted the same "tune" as the Bush administration about anyone critically questioning, putting in doubt, the "official story" of the attacks on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001; people honestly questioning the claims of the Bush Jr-Cheney administration. We're supposedly "terrorists"! We're supposed terrorists for simply asking questions and doubting in what really are common sense ways; for being attentive, paying attention, carefully, and questioning or critiquing what we're told, because much of it is questionable, and enough is provably wrong.
Rev. MLK Jr was assassinated by the government while the President was of the Dem. Party. Obama is a President and of the Dem. Party; although this doesn't mean that the same thing would happen today, against Rev. MLK Jr. Not only because the present Pres. is of the Dem. party, anyway.
Okay, so we're not guaranteed of what would happen, but we have two or three clues to start with, and there are others; for us to be able to understand that this Obama, this "messiah" of many idiot voters who refused to [carefully] keep his years as a senator in mind, before deciding to vote for him for the presidency, to be able to realise that Rev. MLK Jr and likes wouldn't be welcomed by this Administration, say.
Anyone as publicly strong as Rev. MLK Jr was would surely have the government acting against him or her, I think. Rev. MLK Jr brought on the march, protest demonstration of around one million people in one location, if I recall correctly. And while I believe that Louis Farakan and/or Malcolm X similarly did this, there were a couple of assassinations by the government in all of this; and the government has not become better since.
Guatanamo Bay detainees who were always innocent, three of them, we now learn, were what I consider to have been brutally murdered, but the U.S. government wants to pretend suicides and blocks independent investigations, which, imo, don't need to be conducted in order to determine whether, or not, these are suicides. Imo, they're clearly cases of murder(s). But the government "leaders" decide it's suicide(s).
There's really nothing new about that, but Rev. MLK Jr might only be arrested under the false accusation of being a terrorist or for supporting the terrorists of today.
I recently learned that thousands of Canadians are on the U.S. "terrorist watch list". Why? There definitely aren't more than a handful of terrorists in Cananda, and that's if there are any at all.
DECEPTION(S). Cover-up smokescreens used to distract and deceive the public regarding what's really going on.
We are being spun and lied to..we will never leave Afghanistan..Here is Julian Barnes, (Judith Miller West)taking dication, and reporting it as news.....
Afghanistan will need U.S. help for 15 to 20 years, Karzai says
Army Gen. McChrystal tells lawmakers that the U.S. must signal its long-term commitment if the military strategy is to work. Gates addresses questions about troop withdrawals.
By Julian E. Barnes and Tony Perry
December 9, 2009
Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan, and Washington
Afghanistan's security forces will need U.S. support for another 15 to 20 years, President Hamid Karzai said Tuesday in the latest in a series of indications that U.S. involvement there is likely to last far into the future.
Also Tuesday, the top U.S. and allied commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, told lawmakers in Washington that the U.S. needed to signal a long-term commitment in Afghanistan in order to reverse the momentum of the Taliban-led insurgency, a commitment that he said must continue even after combat forces begin to draw down in 2011.
Questions about the timing of U.S. troop reductions and a hand-over of control to Afghan forces loomed over both McChrystal's testimony in Washington and a trip to Kabul by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
Karzai, appearing beside Gates at a news conference in the Afghan capital, said it would take five years for his forces to assume responsibility for security throughout the country. He said it would be 15 to 20 years before Afghan forces could operate without heavy U.S. financial and technical help.
Gates did not take issue with Karzai's timeline, but he said he hoped that the Afghan military could be ready sooner. Gates emphasized that a U.S. withdrawal would begin in 2011, as outlined by President Obama in his order last week to deploy an additional 30,000 troops. But Gates said the drawdown would be a process lasting several years as Afghan forces took responsibility.
"Whether it's three years or two years or four years I think remains to be seen," Gates said. "As President Obama has made very clear, this is not an open-ended commitment on the part of the United States."
McChrystal, appearing before the Senate and House armed services committees, reinforced Obama's message of limits to U.S. involvement, but he also stressed the need for a long-term commitment to Afghanistan.
"That we will not abandon them over time is very, very important," McChrystal told the Senate panel. "It gives them consistency in our commitment to them and some assurance for the future."
McChrystal voiced confidence that the added troops, which will bring the U.S. force to about 100,000 next year, would produce recognizable gains by 2011, an important step to win over Afghans and erode any support enjoyed by insurgents.
"The most important thing we will have done by the summer of 2011 is convince the majority of the Afghan people that, in fact, we are going to win," McChrystal said.
McChrystal appeared with Karl W. Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and a former military commander there. Lawmakers questioned both men for signs of disagreement with the White House or with each other. McChrystal had recommended that 40,000 extra U.S. troops be deployed but has endorsed Obama's plan to send 30,000. Eikenberry had opposed additional troops without steps to ensure that the Karzai government would improve its government services and security forces.
However, both said they had embraced the Obama strategy, and they presented a united front to lawmakers.
The U.S. buildup is projected to cost $30 billion a year, and expectations of long-term American involvement in Afghanistan are based in part on the cost of battling the country's militants. Afghanistan's economy is small and weak, and its government has only a limited ability to collect taxes and tariffs. Without a larger, stronger economy, it has few options for paying for an army and police force robust enough to counter a viable insurgency.
"There is a realism on our part that it will be some time before Afghanistan is able to sustain its security forces entirely on its own," Gates said in Kabul. "And whether that's 15 or 20 years, we'll hope for accelerated economic development."
Eikenberry told senators that support for the Afghan forces would be far less expensive than keeping American combat units in the country.
"This will be a burden on the government of Afghanistan; they will need assistance," Eikenberry said. "It is clearly in our own long-term economic interest to help the Afghans stand up their police and army forces. That is a pretty good trade-off if we do not need to send more U.S. soldiers and Marines."
Some lawmakers cited widespread corruption in the Afghan government as a possible impediment to the new U.S. approach. Sen. Paul G. Kirk Jr. (D-Mass.) said Karzai was the "weak link" in the president's strategy.
Eikenberry said he was encouraged by Karzai's recent commitment to fighting corruption but acknowledged that the issue would "remain a challenge."
In Kabul, Karzai said he had assembled about 40% of his Cabinet and would present the complete list by next week.
He said he would choose a Cabinet that could be "appreciated and supported by the international community," a potential sign that he intends to exclude the most notorious warlords who have occupied key positions.
julian.barnes@latimes.com
tony.perry@latimes.com
Times staff writer Paul Richter in Washington contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Until the Middle East oil runs out, Empire USA will always
be there striving to generate maximize violence and hatred.
Afghanistan will need the ongoing security support of the US military until the gas/oil pipeline is built and the "Stans" are drained of every last drop of natural resources. Only THEN will we turn over the vast sea of sand and rock to its brown-skinned untermenchen.
Al-Jazeera.net has become very mainstream media of late,
this article being typical of their lukewarm no-dept coverage,
nothing really news and some misinformation.
Notice how the article stated the general’s opinion as if it was
fact beyond question, and no balanced effort to challenge
his assertions.
For three weeks straight in their coverage of the Honduras
coup dictatorship they kept telling the same old lie, that the
only reason for the coup was that Zelaya wanted to change the
Constitution so he could remain in power.
More likely, Zelaya wanted to raise the minimum wage.
Chiquita and Dole would not stand for survival wages so they called in the SOA trained Junta.
Wow, this sounds very familiar. Same tune about Iraq, except the military switched the label. "Well, it is much harder than we anticipated" = we have to stay there much longer than we anticipated. Can someone warn us before Nero enters the Oval Office?
Sorry to disappoint you but Nero has been and gone.
Progress is when the US and the rest of the NATO war machine get their booties kicked and the people of this country get their country back!
As John Pilger once said "Freedom Next Time."
AD
Said by one that knows some 48 years ago:
We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought of unsought, by the military-industrial complex. . . .
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. . . . .
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Farewell Address to The Nation
January 17, 1961
General Westmoreland (oops, excuse me, I meant to say Petraeus) is just following up on, and supporting, the speech Obama made at West Point last week. He was happy to do it because he got the only thing Generals really care about: getting more cannon fodder (sorry, I meant to say troops) so history will remember him as the second coming of Patton.
As for Obama's speech, it was very nostalgic. It reminded me of the first time I heard it . . . in 1964.
It has become a painful reality that America has been hijacked by the Elite who own the banks,oil companys, military industrial complex,OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, and the main stream media.
These fat rich white freaks from greedy hell own the most powerful military in the world, and they will lie,cheat,DESTROY, and murder to get what they want.Including your children,fathers and mothers in the military.
What do they want? Economic disaster, financial ca-lapse.A war that never ends , which means you need their Armys for security.
THE NEW WORLD ORDER.
To achieve their goals they have enlisted right wing Christians into believing they must be ready for anarchy, they must support the holy war, and they must be the new stazi police, for they alone are morally capable.
There is no doubt in my mind , the Evangelical right have an army of stazi police,nation wide.
And no one is going to stop them, short of a civil war.
Their church leaders never talk about the evils of war or the patriot act.
Its ok to take away everyone's fourth amendment rights, control is the issue.
But the fools have no clue that the first amendment is under attack , and soon they will close churches, because they fear these organizations will turn on them. Then the second amendment is the closer.Take all the guns by force.
Right or left wing, you can pray for our troops and our leaders, I am praying that Christians wake up, and realize that believers and non-believers will need to join forces to save the constitution, our respective beliefs, and America.
United we must stand , to protect the constitution and our democracy from war mongers, and the new world order.
Freedom is not free, but the fight is here within our borders my fellow Americans, they are destroying the middle class, and once we our gone, its just the Armys of brain dead and the poor thats left.
I WILL DIE FIGHTING TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE I BECOME EITHER.
BornFreeMen
Torture victim of the right wing stazi gang stalking police. They are here and they are real.
Fascism. It started with the death of Roosevelt. They moved in and they negated every treaty we made with every world leader who didn't fit the fascist/militarist mold. We went back on our word. As David Schoenbrun says very well, "I am not a dissenter for saying this. Those who betrayed American policy are the dissenters." We've gone back on the dream of national independence and we were the model for the rest of the world. Then when they followed our model, we attacked them for it. Shameful. No one has a right to stain the American flag. And unfortunately, we have people in this country who did it. If America goes, it will surely be an inside job.
Mort Sahl, 1968
We used to read about the "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire." We didn't even know what the Roman Empire was all about. Now, the coming generations can read "The Rise and Fall of the United States -- a study in stupidity and cupidity."
Now we,the offspring of those who stood at Concord Bridge and "fired the shot heard 'round the world," can only hope we never run into our forefathers who have so cruelly been deceived.
Imagine for a minute what China and Japan must be thinking.
Do you think they understand what the American hegemon's true intentions are in the Middle East? That we're there for the Texas Tea and the poppies, and the development of more military bases in the region, complete with Burger Kings and Starbucks.
I suppose the only recourse China or Japan has is that of monetary? Oh, and cutting off the supply of cheap goods that the American sheople purchase each and every day.
What we really need to do is to start bringing our troops home NOW! Sadly though that ain't gonna happen. You've got a better chance of winning a Noble Peace Prize! Or, finding one inside a of box of Cracker Jack.
So much for change. Perhaps if you look down the cushions of your sofa's you'll find some there.
Stanley McChrystal is so sure that killing Osama Bin Laden will demoralize and dissolve al Qaeda. Because he sees Bin Laden as symbol and thinks everybody else in the world does, too. And McChrystal, like a lot of foolishly romantic Americans in the overly innocent tradition of Tom Sawyer, believes too much in symbols. 9/11 was certainly a horrible disaster, but much more than that it is a symbol to such people. Deaths in car accidents could never mean so much to them even though to a reasonable person death is death.
Suppose that Americans finally kill Bin Laden (if he really is alive). There will be a hell of a hullabaloo just as when Saddam Hussein (unrelated) was caught and executed. The trouble is that Saddam's demise meant no difference whatsoever in world affairs. Aren't the chances good that the death of Bin Laden won't matter either?
So is Stanley McChrystal the man we want to do our thinking for us? A real lightweight if you ask me. I was never that impressed by Father Petraeus either. His "surge" was too symbolic, something dreamed up by an ad man. The Shias had already decimated the Sunnis-- that is the reality.
The "surge" was just a means for American loonies to take credit.
"Proud of my country" says a bumper sticker I have to look at every day, but I am only proud of Americans who have the ability, like our founders, to see through nonsense.
One suspects that the U.S. and Obama would much rather have bin Laden dead than alive as the U.S. realizes that it would have a very difficult time making its case against bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks. FBI spokesman Rex Tomb is on record as stating that they do not have enough evidence on bin Laden to place him on their Most Wanted List in relation to those attacks. The U.S. motto: shoot first, ask questions later.
How low can the USA go.
"likely to get harder before it gets easier", a top-ranking US general has warned, saying violence in the country will rise in the short-term.
I suggest people think about the meaning of this.
Can you see it is not very clever?
Yet this man bent on increasing violence is granted an ear in the USA.
The USA has the capacity to kill so many people that there are too few left to retaliate. Petraeus, the man of little mind wearing all the medals in picture, intends to do so. It is mass murder. String the idiot up before he can carry out what he boldly boasts!
He makes Saddam look like lovely.
"the other key issue that the US congress is obsessing over is corruption within Afghanistan"
Cuz there isn't any corruption in the USA for Congruss to obsess over. Every USan knows other countries get twice the deal on healthcare. But the USA hasn't any imperial agenda to seize control of central Asian fossil routes. We're bringin on democracy there, that's all. One third of USans personal income equivalent in 2009 was funneled out of the US treasury into the pockets of Wall Struck banksters who are now buying handguns in droves to fend off attack. But the corruption is in Afghanistan, not here. This is the gospel according to Faux Newz.
And the psychopathic generals again get their way.
Active General McChrystal gave another MSM interview with Ms. Amanpour. It is time that our President tells all active Generals that the only place where they can have "interviews" is the Congress or, if they do not like that rule, retire or be fired.
"The US general told the Committee that Afghanistan is no worse condition now than Iraq was when he arrived there two years ago."
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
I'm going to try this strategy on my boss during my next performance review.
"I think I should have a raise and more resources, as the company is no worse off than when I started."
"I MUST WITH GREAT SHAME AND SADNESS SAY THAT THE GREATEST PURVEYOR OF VIOLENCE IN THE WORLD TODAY IS MY OWN COUNTRY AND GOVERNMENT"
REVEREND MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
Yes, violence will rise--and aren't you just jumping for joy! Pass the body bags.
This is like Al Capone predicting a rise in violence.
The only people that thought this wasn't going to be difficult were Petraeus, Gates and Obama.
Everyone else not only thought it would be difficult but they knew it was pointless.
It's not going to get better. It's going to get much worse.