Sudan was once the home of Osama bin Laden so, to say that the country has terrorist ties would be an understatement.

In our so-called, “war on terror”, it appears that we are willing to drag our feet while atrocities are carried out by a government in exchange for some information on terrorist activities.

Despite protestations to the contrary, this is part of our policy on Sudan.

It’s kind of like the police letting one of their informants rape and murder in exchange from some information they might have on drug syndicate. You ignore crimes actually being carried out by one group, based on the fear of potential crimes by another group.

This is just one more piece in the puzzle of why we sit idly by while people die.

But, really, it’s not so complicated when you think about it. There’s a line in the movie Sahara that sums it up best. In one scene, there’s an exchange between a man running a waste disposal plant where chemicals are seeping into the water supply, threatening the people of the country, and the dictator of that country. When the plant owner expresses worry, the dictator turns to him and simply says, “Don’t worry. It’s Africa. Nobody cares about Africa.”

So, I offer the same conclusion — nobody cares about Africa.

Popularity: 72% [?]

Sadly, the deaths of over 500,000 people, the rapes of countless women and girls and the displacement of over 2.5 million Darfurians has not moved the U.S. toward decisive action against the Sudanese government (I guess oil is thicker than blood). However, there may be something that’s more in the U.S. own interests that will force its hand on Sudan.

You know the whole “global war on terror” thing that Bush keeps telling us we’re fighting. In particular, he states that al-Qaeda is our number one threat. Well, a judge has ruled that Sudan is liable in the 2000 attack of the U.S.S. Cole in which 17 sailors were killed.

Specifically, the judge said that “(t)here is substantial evidence in this case presented by the expert testimony that the government of Sudan induced the particular bombing of the Cole by virtue of prior actions of the government of Sudan.” Did you read what I read? The GOVERNMENT of Sudan was involved in an al-Qaeda attack against a U.S. Navy vessel. Remember, Sudan was a hotbed for al-Qaeda activity and, at one time, was home to Osama bin Laden.

So, what does it say that we go to war against a country that posed not real threat to us but, we act diplomatically with a country whose government was complicit in an attack on a military vessel and the deaths of U.S. soldiers?

If genocide doesn’t move the U.S., maybe this will.

Popularity: 79% [?]

Anybody remember when the law kind of meant something?

I know you have to go back quite a few years but, I’m sure you can vaguely remember when some were up in arms about a President’s sexual trysts with an intern and Congress’s need to “follow the rule of law.”

Now, it seems that, for those in the highest offices of our government, “the rule of law” is now more a suggestion than a requirement and anything goes.

The latest manifestation of that comes in the form the actions of the Justice Department and the FBI. In there supposed investigations of terrorists, these agencies managed to do what I thought was impossible. They violated the already-draconian Patriot Act.

Just look at this excerpt below:

The nation’s top two law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday the FBI broke the law to secretly pry out personal information about Americans. They apologized and vowed to prevent further illegal intrusions.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left open the possibility of pursuing criminal charges against FBI agents or lawyers who improperly used the USA Patriot Act in pursuit of suspected terrorists and spies.

The FBI’s transgressions were spelled out in a damning 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. He found that agents sometimes demanded personal data on people without official authorization, and in other cases improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances.

The audit also concluded that the FBI for three years underreported to Congress how often it used national security letters to ask businesses to turn over customer data. The letters are administrative subpoenas that do not require a judge’s approval.

This was the very type of concern cited by opponents of the Patriot Act. Now, we are to believe that the very agencies responsible for these transgressions are now going to investigate themselves properly?

Personally, I think they are doing the very job that they are supposed to do under this act, act with impunity and disregard for laws and civil liberties to silence dissenting opinion.

Popularity: 27% [?]

Would you believe October 2008?

For those who don’t believe that the President’s “War on Terror” is more political than practical and more substance than smoke and mirrors, ask yourself about the contents of a recent memos issued by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

Beginning in December 2006, England wrote a memo detail 8 priorities for the fiscal year. Number 1 was winning the “Global War on Terror”. Number 3 was “Meet the Challenge of Improvised Explosive Devices.” But, an interesting note to all this was the following:

England warned that meeting these goals “will inform our decisions on individual senior employee performance ratings.” That means their paychecks.

However, England’s February 15 memo was even more enlightening.

“At noon on Jan. 20, 2009,” he wrote, “many of the civilian Department of Defense (DOD) leadership positions will transition to a new Administration Team. This change, coupled with the normal rotation of military leadership, could disrupt many of the management process changes currently underway in the Department.”

So “to ensure that warfighters and taxpayers receive maximum benefit from on-going initiatives,” England suggested, “it would be highly desirable to complete current projects by the summer/fall of 2008.”

Did you catch that? Because election season is coming up, we might want to end the “War on Terror” in a timely manner? From an administration that continually rejects calls for timelines in just one conflict, in Iraq, here you have them talking about wrapping up the entire “War on Terror” in the next 18 months.

Now, if I’ve heard the President correctly, this is the most important conflict of our time? So, how can anyone in his administration propose ending it so quickly? Are they, perhaps, suggesting that we…gasp…”cut and run” in the “War on Terror”.

Or, perhaps, this is a glimpse into the true nature of this initiative — use it to maintain political power and manipulate fear for votes.

Well, mark your calendar…the “War on Terror” may soon be coming to an end.

Popularity: 31% [?]

In an explosive new article, journalist Seymour Hersch levels some accusations that, if true, could totally undermine Bush’s entire “War on Terror.”

According to Hersch, Bush is funneling money into Sunni jihadist groups, including some with ties to the same people involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Check out the video (thanks to crooksandliars.com):

 

 Bush Financing Terrorists?: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Popularity: 40% [?]

Sometimes, it’s hard to believe that Weekly Standard editor William Kristol is actually a member of a right-wing think tank because, often, there appears to be so little thought in what he says.

So, it’s no surprise to hear me make another senseless argument in an attempted slam against Barack Obama. For some reason, Kristol believes that, in 2008, America will want another warmongering president. So, in attempts to label Obama a pacifist, of sorts, he draws a strange contrast of Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln.

In a fallacious historical argument, Kristol offers the following:

KRISTOL: We’re electing a war president in 2008. If I can go back to Obama and Lincoln for just one second, Lincoln’s “house divided” speech in 1858 was a speech saying we cannot live as a house divided on slavery. And he implicitly says we’ll have to fight a civil war if necessary on this.

Obama’s speech is a “can’t we get along” speech — sort of the opposite of Lincoln. He would have been with Stephen Douglas in 1858. Let’s paper over these differences, rise above politics and all get along. That’s not Giuliani’s mode. And I think in a war context, social conservatives want to win the war against Islamic jihadism.

First, I would suggest that Kristol actually go back and read those debates. If he did, he would have realized that Lincoln was not anti-slavery, at all (quit believing what they fed you in grade school) and the content of these debates would have easily displayed this to him.

But, more importantly, I am tired of conservatives trying to draw parallels between Bush’s “war on terror”, or should I say “war of choice” and the fight to end slavery (which the Civil War really wasn’t).

Another interesting thing is that, by contrasting him to the romanticized view of Lincoln, he is saying that, had Obama been around back then, he would have been on the pro-slavery side. Yeah, let that one soak in.

Needless to say, Kristol, in shilling for the right, has once again engaged in intellectual dishonesty.

I guess some folks will do anything for a check.

Video below (thanks to Crooksandliars.com):

 

 Kristol's Attack on Obama [1:36m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Popularity: 32% [?]

One problem I have with the “War on Terror” is that it doesn’t deal with terror across the board. Basically, the face of terror has to be brown in order to be granted any media attention.

However, what happens when the face of terror is white and non-Muslim? As black people, our history is replete with stories of white terrorist groups (like the KKK) carrying out bombings, assassinations, lynchings, rapes, etc. with impunity. But, for some reason, people don’t consider this “real” terrorism.

Okay, even if that is not “real” terrorism to you, how would you define this?

Last Tuesday, Demetrius “Van” Crocker of McKenzie, Tennessee was sentenced to 30 years in prison. His crime: he was plotting to explode a briefcase bomb in the Congress while it was in session.

The 40-year-old farmhand and father of two was convicted of accepting what he thought were ingredients to make Sarin nerve gas and a block of C-4 explosive from undercover agents in October 2004.

The maximum penalty Crocker could have faced for the convictions would have been a life sentence. Todd did order lifetime supervised release for Crocker once he gets out of prison.In all, Crocker was convicted on five charges: one count of attempted possession of a chemical weapon, one count of inducing another person to acquire a chemical weapon, one count of possession of stolen explosives, one count of possession of explosive material with intent to harm an individual or damage or destroy a building, and one count of possession of an unregistered destructive device.

During the trial, prosecutors introduced video- and audio-taped conversations that Crocker had with undercover agents, laced with profanity, racial slurs and Crocker’s open hatred of all things to do with the government.

Now, anybody want to tell me why this is not terrorism, too?

Popularity: 39% [?]