« President... Fred Thompson | Main | CHIM CHIM CHIMERA? »
March 26, 2007
Does the Focus on Bush Effectively Silence Other Voices?
Your life and your freedom might be at stake.
by Tina Grazier
Political strife in America is creating an atmosphere that endangers our way of life and perhaps even our existence. Whatever the underlying cause may be, the effect is an uninformed and narrowly focused population. We are distracted by petty arguments at a time when unity against a committed enemy is vital. The voices of distraction are those condemning the elected president, George W. Bush and, in response, those who must, if they are to remain politically viable, relentlessly explain or defend him. Have we, as Americans, been served by this? We have not. The constant drum beat assails and provokes hour after hour and day after day. Is it any wonder the public grows weary of both problem and process?
Concerned citizens must search for facts and information from sources other than our mainstream media; a media that merely highlights the narrow focus rather than digging for every bit of information available. I encourage you to seek out information for yourself and I highly recommend every article and opinion in this post. Please do yourself a favor, click on the links and read the articles.
This post offers only a taste of what other voices are saying; voices that may or may not reflect agreement with President Bush, but may very well reflect the concerns that our president and those in his council must face every day.
Lets begin with the voice of a man called Mohammed posting at iraqthemodel.blogspot.com. Mohammed is quoting his father who is offering a simple explanation for the war on terror:
When The Taliban regime in Afghanistan fell young men waited in lines to get a haircut and when Saddam fell barbers became targets.
This one thought is profound in its simplicity. The enemy easily changes focus, and in fact, uses adaptation as a main strategy. Mohammed goes on:
I wanted to talk about this because recently we've been watching the debate in America about redeployment of troops and identifying the real front we must focus on. ** I see that al-Qaeda and terrorists in general didn't hide their position in this respect—despite the fact that they still operate in many parts of the world, they are clearly redirecting most effort and resources to the war in Iraq.
Al-Qaeda itself boasts about the great "sacrifices" of more than 4,000 "martyrs" to emphasize the importance of the war here. And the hundreds of suicide bombers preferred to blow themselves up in Iraq than anywhere else should remind us that if al-Qaeda considers this the main war then why talk about redeployment? Walking away from the main war is not redeployment, it's quitting.
Next we visit several voices whispering of a possible Islamist insurgency in Pakistan to overthrow Musharraf; a threat that would establish an Islamist state and deliver nuclear arms to terrorists and sponsors of terrorism such as the Iranian mullahs, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Front Page magazine recently published evidence in a report by Jamie Glazov titled,
“Symposium: The First Nuclear Terrorist Power” that included five distinguished scholars and experts.
B. Raman, the former head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research & Analysis Wing, India's CIA, and a well-know analyst of jihadi terrorism. Dr. Rohan Gunaratna, the author of Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror. He is Head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore. Steve Schippert, co-founder of the Center for Threat Awareness and managing editor for ThreatsWatch.org. Daveed Gartenstein Ross, a counterterrorism consultant. He is the author of the new book, My Year Inside Radical Islam, which documents his time working at the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, an international Wahhabi charity that proved to be an al-Qaeda financier. Thomas Joscelyn, an expert on the international terrorist network.
Schippert: What we know is that there are elements of Musharraf's government (military and intelligence) that are sympathetic to al-Qaeda and/or the Taliban. We can reasonably surmise that his recent agreements with tribal leaders, such as the Miramshah Agreement in North Waziristan, are in response to his ineffectiveness in the tribal regions. More agreements are coming, for instance in Bajour and potentially the whole of the North-West Frontier Province. These agreements have and will cede control of significant swaths of territory to what I refer to as the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance, different groups with differing objectives and both aided in large part by at least a portion of the ISI, the Pakistani military intelligence service. Yet, even as Musharraf bends to their demands, they hate him no less and disregard agreed-to terms without fear of consequence.
Thomas Joscelyn: …let me lay out three concrete ways the tenuous situation in Pakistan impacts the current “war on terror. The first has to do with the ability of so-called “al Qaeda central” to orchestrate terrorist attacks. Numerous reports indicate that senior al Qaeda officials operate out of the mountainous border region separating Pakistan and Afghanistan. And plots around the world have been traced to their doorsteps. (On a side note: There is also a substantial body of evidence indicating that senior al Qaeda officials continue to operate from Iran as well.) ** The second issue concerns the future of Afghanistan. The Taliban, al Qaeda and their allies are once again resurgent. Their ability to attack coalition forces, who are trying to stabilize the broken nation, has steadily grown. There is no doubt that the safe haven our terrorist enemies enjoy on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan allows them to orchestrate these attacks with increasing efficacy. ** The third issue, which is in no way less important than the first two, concerns ongoing terrorist attacks against India. Pakistan’s intelligence services have long supported Islamist terrorist operations inside India. It has been a prominent part of Pakistan’s ongoing proxy war. Recently, there has been some rapprochement between senior Indian and Pakistani government officials. The two sides are attempting to limit cross-border terrorism as well as prevent Islamists from triggering a devastating nuclear exchange.
Raman: There are four possible negative scenarios: ** (Worrisome Probability) Musharraf is removed from the scene either by death due to natural causes or through assassination either by a terrorist or an accomplice of the jihadi terrorists inside the armed forces. ** (Medium Probability): The Pakistan Muslim League (Qaide Azam) created by Musharraf and its allies, who are loyal to him, do badly in the elections due later this year or even lose them. ** (Low probability): A group of Army and ISI officers unhappy over his perceived co-operation with the US overthrow him, assume power and stop co-operation with the US in its war against terrorism. Such a coup will have some public and political support in the interregnum. It will particularly enjoy the support of the fundamentalists and the jihadi terrorists. ** (Even lower probability): There is an Islamic uprising similar to what one saw in Iran in 1978-79 and the Sunni/Wahabi terrorists take over power and assume control over the national security/nuclear establishments. ** I have always held the view that if there is an act of jihadi terrorism anywhere in the world in which a WMD is used, it would have almost certainly originated from Pakistan or Chechnya.
Gunaratna: After the US-led coalition intervention in Afghanistan, the ground zero of terrorism has moved to the FATA in Pakistan. Pakistan needs all the support the international community can give to fight both terrorism - but more importantly - extremism. ** Musharraf is America's most pivotal ally in the fight against terrorism. More than 25% of detainees in Gitmo were captured in Pakistan by the government agencies of Pakistan -- especially ISI and IB working with the CIA.
Gartenstein Ross: One of the problems with predicting Pakistan’s future is that there are a lot of unknowns about the country’s politics. In particular, there is an enormous amount that Western and other intelligence agencies do not know because of the fluid nature of the Pakistani military’s politics. If Musharraf is overthrown, who will have the support of key generals and officers? Our intelligence services cannot say with confidence. But we do know that factions within Pakistan’s military aren’t afraid to step in and take control. Three Pakistani governments—those of Ayub Khan, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, and Musharraf—grew out of military coups.
Finally I give you the voice of a lone reporter in Toranto, Michael Choren, who imagines a future history book as it looks back on this period in history. It’s a little piece called ”The reason we have to fight”.
In a chapter entitled, Why We Fought, it would list the crimes of an ideology and a movement, Islamic fundamentalism, that became so powerful and so grotesque in the opening years of the 21st century that the civilized world was obliged to resist. ** It would also recount how some people in the civilized world opposed the struggle, out of self-loathing, cowardice, leftist politics or simply because they were part of the jihadist movement:
They beheaded Christian girls in Indonesia who were making their way to school. ** They planted bombs in places of worship that belonged to their own Muslim faith... ** They murdered 150,000 of their own people in Algeria... ** In Iraq they kidnapped people who had devoted their lives to helping the impoverished and the abused, tied those good people up like animals and then tortured and humiliated them. ** In Lebanon they dragged badly wounded co-religionists from their hospital beds and beat them to death on the street. ** They declared their intention to target children because, they said, they knew their enemies valued children most of all and loved life. ** They indoctrinated their own children and taught them to hate and loathe and lust for blood and death. ** They despised progress, freedom, grace, gentleness, empathy, tolerance, civilization, truth, thought, understanding, joy, laughter and love. They hated humanity and they hated God.
These are small examples of the information and opinion available from many sources that are constantly diminished and made irrelevant by our media and political factions. They choose to be enthralled with the debased antics of celebrities or with juvenile political power games, particularly targeting the Bush administration rather than being compelled to act as witness or informant to the public on issues that threaten. Our troops are paying a high price and they deserve our support and our conscious attention to events and details.
Every day our president goes to work and squarely faces the terrorist threats to America. It’s too bad he must also face hostility from some reporters and others in his own country. It's unfortunate that he must take time to counter the drivel that passes as "news". Some would say it’s just part of the job. That may be true, but it is still ludicrous in a time of war. It's unbelievable that they seem determined to undermine the president rather than assist in the effort to defeat our enemies. Our next president will also need to address the terrorist threat. He or she will choose another group of advisors and administrators. Will these voices continue to be rendered effectively silent by a soft and inadequate media serving mainly as an entertainment enterprise or worse, a political arm?
We are at war and information plays a necesary and vital part in winning. There are voices that demonstrate the need to fight this war. They are voices that support the presidents position and they are voices being rendered silent by factions and news services bent on breaking Bush instead of keeping you and I, the citizens of this great nation, well informed.
Posted by Post Scripts at March 26, 2007 07:47 AM
Comments
Terrorists understand, if liberals don't, how critical winning in Iraq is to both sides.
Unfortunately terrorists are completely unhindered by a Nancy Pelosi controlled congress.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at March 26, 2007 03:42 PM
how critical winning in Iraq is to both sides.
Nick, After studying the inane rantings of many on the left I'm pretty sure they don't even know we have Iraqi allies in Iraq...they see invasion and bombs dropping on children...as evidenced by Sean Penn's remarks, for instance. (Jacks recent post)
Posted by: Tina at March 26, 2007 08:54 PM