So, the president has linked the failed plane bomber with 'al-Qaeda' in Yemen

[bigtree]

. . . stepping out onto the same slippery slope the last administration eagerly dragged us down.


___ U.S. President Barack Obama, for the first time, has publicly connected the suspect who tried to blow up a U.S.-bound passenger plane on Christmas Day, December 25, to al-Qaida.

In his weekly radio and Internet address released early Saturday on the White House Web site, Mr. Obama said it appeared a Yemeni affiliate of al-Qaida trained the suspect, "equipped him with ... explosives, and directed him to attack" the plane "headed for America."

Mr. Obama said the group had attacked American targets before, including killing an American at the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in 2008. He said the U.S. government is strengthening its partnership with Yemen "to strike al-Qaida terrorists."

The president, who has been criticized by opposition Republicans for not taking strong enough action against militants and terrorists, defended his administration's efforts to end the war in Iraq and increase troop levels in Afghanistan. He said those actions are part of his strategy to "disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies."


read: http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Obama-Links-Christmas-Day-Terrorist-Attempt-to-al-Qaida-80496747.html


President Obama's weekly address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/weekly-address

[madokie]

1. I don't think there were any falsehoods there

I'm trying to not use the ignore feature this year but best I remember you don't like my President at all. Is that true?
No American troops died in Iraq for this last month of '09, just in case in your hate you hadn't noticed. :hi:

[bigtree]

2. what about this post made you so defensive?

The election is OVER. I'm not campaigning for our against the president as I post these events and statements regarding our nation's military posture abroad. The exercise of our nation's military abroad was my primary reason for coming to DU and my reason for continuing to post here. The 'hate the president' defense is getting tiresome and it's just bullshit. It didn't work for Bush when his defenders accused critics of his policies and it won't work in defense of this president's policies either. After all, that's what my discussions here center on. Find me ONE statement of mine which expresses 'hate' for this president and I'll recant and apologize. But you won't because I've NEVER expressed 'hate' or even any overt animosity for Barack Obama on this board and I don't intend to. I have always treated President Obama with the utmost respect as I express my opinions about his policies, personnel, and stated intentions here.

The troops in Iraq have restricted their activity to the base, but there is still the tyranny of our occupation drawing precious resources and still representing the oppressive, coercive, imperialistic intentions of our nation's government and military. I don't have to like or dislike the president personally to disagree with continuing the oppressive and counter-influential occupation of Iraq for whatever political goal that the president is waiting for. And, I can't have any comfort at all in knowing that the bulk of those forces will just be squandered and sacrificed for politics in Afghanistan. Save the 'hate' crap and try actually reading what I write here, It's all in my journal and I challenge you to find one 'hateful' or disrespectful word about our president among my criticisms. If you can't bother to look and see, you really have no place to raise such a criticism in his defense against my own.

[Nikki Stone1]

4. +1

.

[Jamastiene]

6. Well said. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. How about your only comment?

"stepping out onto the same slippery slope the last administration eagerly dragged us down". Yeah, that's enough to make a Democrat defensive. The 'bomber' himself said he was linked with al Qaeda in Yemen, it's known he recently went to Yemen, and yet you think that Obama saying this is a 'slippery slope'? It's the bleedin' obvious, and I can't work out why you are against it being stated.

[bigtree]

20. It's a slippery slope whether you believe the linkage or not

I actually don't think the president sounds as certain as he might, but leave that aside. Go back to the 9-11 attacks and recall where you believe that military mission devolved into a conflation of all resistance to our military action and presence into 'enemies' akin to the 9-11 fugitive suspects. We are now escalated to the hilt of our ready forces in Afghanistan; still hunkered down in Iraq waiting for some political nonsense; and the inference of the president's remarks is that we are on the verge of some sort of retaliatory strike in Yemen. It may well develop that the president achieves some pinpoint strike which avenges the plane bomber's failed attempt. But the more likely prospect has already been set in motion with the U.S. assisted strikes approved before the plane incident even occurred.

The consequence of increased U.S. military action and involvement in Yemen will be the inevitable escalation of the already threatening resistance to the Yemeni regime because of their increased alliance with the U.S., and the familiar, opportunistic alliances between 'al-Qaeda' in Yemen and that local resistance. We're not threatened by that local resistance right now, but overt U.S. military involvement in Yemen will likely serve to undermine the very regime that's now relied on as a wedge against objectionable influences there.

Most observers say that al-Qaeda is the least of Yemen's problems. By the time we're done stirring things up, I'll wager that al-Qaeda (or our military and administration's incarnation of them there) will be indistinguishable in our generals'' eyes from the same specter they're busy chasing in Afghanistan.

[LWolf]

47. +2

[leftstreet]

50. +3

Well said

[smalll]

54. I don't know about him, but I'll tell you what me "defensive" as soon as I started reading the OP--

"So, the president has linked the failed plane bomber with 'al-Qaeda' in Yemen

. . . stepping out onto the same slippery slope the last administration eagerly dragged us down."

Um, how is it "stepping out" onto a "slippery slope" -- like Bush, even -- just to tell the TRUTH? Just to let us know that, yes, the plane bomber was linked with al-Qaeda in Yemen?

Does that mean we have to invade Yemen? No. But what would you have us do? This?


And it turns out I had good reason to be "defensive" - what with this nonsense from you: "The troops in Iraq have restricted their activity to the base, but there is still the tyranny of our occupation drawing precious resources and still representing the oppressive, coercive, imperialistic intentions of our nation's government and military."

"The tyranny of our occupation drawing precious resources?" -- You make it sound like the U.S. Armed Forces are living off the backs of the Iraqis, looting, plundering, exacting tribute. Sorry, that's not what's going on.

It's not just you -- there are many here (and elsewhere) who have a real problem -- you see this:


as this:

[bigtree]

56. U.S. military escalation in the region (in that country) is a slippery slope

. . . period.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Unless the president plans to take no military action at all (unlikely), his linkage of 'al_Qaeda' to the failed bomber augers for yet another front in our government and military leadership's 'war on terror'. Slippery slope.

[Stinky The Clown]

45. "my president"???

What an odd turn of a phrase.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. So President Obama is not your President?

[Stinky The Clown]

52. Yes he is

And you got my point, so stop acting like yoiu don't understand it. You understand perfectly what I meant.

DW

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. So you would say, " President Obama is my President." How is that an odd turn of phrase?

[Stinky The Clown]

57. You know fucking well what I meant by it

Go poke your stick in someone else's eye,

DW

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. Actually I have no idea what your problem was with the phrase.

[Stinky The Clown]

61. I kinda thought you were smarter than that, Dave.

I still think you are. I think you're doing some passive-aggressive thing. I think its stupid.

DW

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. LOL. Okay, Something seems to be lost in translation.

[mmonk]

3. Yep, all militant groups from that part of the world are

al Queda fill in the blank.

[bigtree]

12. interesting, in Yemen

. . . most observers agree that, outside of the obvious potential for any individual to successfully blow something up somewhere, al-Qaeda is the least of Yemen's problems right now. But with the U.S. habit of conflating every violent expression against the U.S. with our grudge match against the remnants and ghosts of al-Qaeda, military action there in the next months will begin the predictable and familiar cycle of escalating the regional and local conflicts as individuals turn their resistance efforts toward America and all who align with us.

[mmonk]

13. At least some hijackers were from there unlike Iraq.

That being said, the use of fear of terrorism for destabilization and then control works the same everywhere. The empire project is effective though I think it will eventually sink us.

[Subdivisions]

60. How do we even know for sure that the Undy-Bomber is

associated with Al Qaeda? Why, just this morning the news is all about how our intelligence agencies simply "missed" Abdulmuttallab. Well, god damn! Isn't that the same excuse that was used to explain how 9/11 happened? It's the same playbook!

[Don Caballero]

5. You are saying Al Qaeda is not in Yemen?

Our President is working with the Yemeni government unlike the Bush regime who would strike countries without notification. The President understands that consulting the Al Qaeda host countries is important for diplomacy.

[arustynail]

10. They're listed in telephone, BBB, and other directories there

And, all a q members wear ID tags except for the #2 and #3 guys. NO, I don't know the office address, so don't ask.

[bigtree]

21. no, I'm saying that we're on the verge of establishing another front in the 'war on terrorism'

There are consequences to the use of our military forces beyond whatever vengeance or justice we seek in Yemen. I worry about the reported plans for a retaliatory strike in response and I worry about the reliability of the president of Yemen to direct his (or our own) military efforts against more than his own political and insurgent opposition which, right now, poses no threat to the U.S.. If they follow the Afghanistan model there, for instance, we'll be up to our necks in new 'enemies' generated by our assisted strikes against the population.

[WT Fuheck]

7. Anyone can be "linked to al Qaeda"

at the whim and convenience of our lords and masters.

[HipChick]

44. It's too easy..His mothers family was from Yemen..

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Time To Spread the War To Cambodia

and re-authorize the Patriot Act.

Terra!

Terra! Terra!

Terra!

[Junkdrawer]

11. After the Afghan escallation speech, it was clear that "al-Qaida" was going to be...

used by this President early and often.

Rudy Giuliani, eat your heart out.

[CJCRANE]

14. Al-Qaeda did exist and Bushco policies made it stronger

(deliberately so IMO).

[rollingrock]

15. Channeling Bush again?

its eery watching how Obama and Bush have completely morphed into the same person over the last year.



'I see no difference between Bush and Obama policies.'
-Danny Glover

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HyyDHyAwI6k/Sd5qqd1hgCI/AAAAAAAAE94/Vg_qDJQnmBc/s400/danny+glover+2.jpg

[CJCRANE]

17. Um...no, Bush didn't seriously go after Al-Qaeda, he dropped the ball

and invaded Iraq instead. That's the whole point, it's the opposite of Bush.

[rollingrock]

18. There is no credible threat to the US in Afghanistan

Robert Gates himself said al Qaeda no longer exists in any significant number in Afghanistan.

Imaginary WMDs = Bush

Imaginary terrorists = Obama

[CJCRANE]

19. What about Pakistan - the place where the original "Talibs" came from?

[HipChick]

46. Lets not stop there...what about the UK?

:sarcasm:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/3406107/Report-identifies-UK-terrorist-enclaves.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2192715/Blond-white-schoolboy-is-al-Qaeda-extremist-say-police.html

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CJCRANE]

55. Do you even know what a Talib is or where they originated from?

I don't repeat talking points - if I did you would hear a lot more in the MSM about how the Taliban and al-Qaeda were created and facilitated by Bushco associates.

[shadowknows69]

16. Every scary person is Al Qaida. Didn't you hear bigtree?

It's official policy now. The other terrorists groups must be quite pissed they no longer get any press.

[stray cat]

30. And according to DUers some days there is no such thing as a scary person

unless its someone they disagree with politically.

[shadowknows69]

38. Didn't say that. Plenty of scary people out there. In fact we're great at making more.

[LWolf]

48. That might be one of our strongest skills. nt

[CJCRANE]

22. There are are two problems...

sometimes the terrorists are just nationalist freedom fighters but the biggest problem comes when the terrorists are actually sponsored by the BFEE so the MIC is really just fighting itself (or rather providing the cannon fodder for both sides and extracting the profits).

[Azathoth]

23. .

[bigtree]

25. what about this post

. . . leads you to think that 'it hasn't occurred to me' there are individuals identifying themselves as 'al-Qaeda' in Yemen?

[Azathoth]

28. Someone else beat me to the comment so I removed mine, however...

Your remark that Obama is somehow taking us down a "slippery slope" merely by claiming that the people behind this latest attack are affiliated with al Qaeda can only be interpreted in one of three ways:

(1) You don't believe there are al Qaeda operatives in Yemen, and thus Obama is invoking "al Qaeda" as a boogieman like Bush did.

(2) You believe there might be al Qaeda operatives in Yemen, but they were not responsible for this attack and Obama is simply lumping all terrorists together as "al-Qaeda" the same way Bush did.

(3) You believe al Qaeda operatives are in Yemen and that they are responsible for this attempted attack, but you believe that telling the American people the truth constitutes taking us down a "slippery slope."

If you had some other point in mind, you did not make it discernible in your post.

[bigtree]

31. I may be wrong

. . . but I interpret the president's statements as confirmation that there will be some sort of public escalation of military action or assistance in Yemen. I'm viewing his comments in context with the fragile state of several conflicts the Yemeni government is trying to manage (to their advantage) with resistance forces that have little or nothing to do with whoever has identified themselves as 'al-Qaeda' in that country.

Who will we be attacking there (or assisting the government in attacking?). I don't have a lot of confidence in the Yemeni government to do much more than use whatever aid and weapons we give them to advantage their regime against their pet 'enemy'. Right now, that resistance to the Yemeni regime doesn't threaten the U.S. at all, but a misguided attack, or even just the heightened public collusion between the U.S. and the Yemeni president is already having the effect of undermining his influence among the different tribes and factions in his country which threaten his regime.

To be fair, the president hasn't done more than just highlight the al-Qaeda linkage (he didn't sound too certain to me) - but coupled with reports of a contemplated retaliatory strike and the already delicate state of the insurgencies in Yemen, I think there's plenty of cause to wonder just how far will we slide into a new military front complete with a ready resistance for al-Qaeda to exploit as we set our bonfires and stir the pot. That's al-Qaeda's goal, you realize; to draw the U.S. into killing or aiding in the killing of Muslims, and, thereby, enlisting the resistance to join their anti-American cause.

[bfarq]

24. For the 10,000th time, al Qaeda is not an organization. it is a brand name

Or more accurately, it is closer to just being an adjective. At best there are only the loosest connections among the various parties using the brand name.

The point is that you can't approach this as if it were a hierarchical organization, and unfortunately that's all we seem capable of conceiving. If you want to slow down the Gambino Family, you go after Gambino. If you want to slow down an opposing army, you try to disrupt their command and control.

That's how you fight hierarchical organizations. And that's the same rhetoric we have heard for 8 years of Bush, and continued in the first year of Obama. At what point do we admit this is not getting us anywhere?

[Cetacea]

26. From a purely political perspective, how should he deal with Cheney?

Terra is their ace in the whole.

[mmonk]

27. Prosecute.

[stray cat]

29. Facts are pesky things - how dare Obama look for facts instead of listening to DU

[bvar22]

32. Hey!...I've seen this movie before.

It ends well for the War Profiteers.
:toast:

Black is White.
WAR is Peace.
I did not run on a Public Option.

[seabeyond]

33. did the president make that connection or did the suspect make the connection when he told

officials he trained in yemen with al-Qaida

[bigtree]

34. actually both

What was significant about the statement today was the president's public confirmation. I liked his effort to educate a little about the circumstances as he understood them, but I couldn't help wonder what action we were being prepared for (if any).

[seabeyond]

35. i dont agree both. the suspect connected it, obama passed on info.

what is gonna happen, i dont know. if it is to do something like bush has done, i dont know. we will see. i suspect not. but i dont know

[cbdo2007]

36. The "slippery slope" of wanting to eliminate al-Quida before they eliminate us???

[bigtree]

37. why have increasing numbers of individuals adopted the anti-American ideology of al-Qaeda?

. . . evil?

[timeforpeace]

39. Empowering terrorists? What about our freedom not to live in fear?

[LiberalAndProud]

40. How is this a slippery slope?

From your OP:
He said the U.S. government is strengthening its partnership with Yemen "to strike al-Qaida terrorists."

That doesn't sound like saber rattling, or a brand new war to me. Would it be better if he simply didn't tell us from whence the terrorist came? Do you think he's making it up?

[bigtree]

43. I think there's evidence already

. . . that the Yemeni strikes the U.S. participated in even before the plane incident have had the effect of undermining the credibility and influence of the regime there among the several active points of opposition to that rule. It doesn't take much imagination to envision one of these sanctioned, assisted, or U.S. launched strikes killing the wrong people and serving to inflame an already complicated two-front insurgency in Yemen. It should be immediately assumed that U.S. presence, activity, or military assistance threatens to serve as a flashpoint for existing insurgencies to exploit and provides whoever identifies their resistance to the U.S., our interests, or allies with 'al-Qaeda' a ready recruiting argument for enlisting resisting country folk to join their anti-American cause. There's no threat to the U.S. from the Yemeni insurgencies, but it won't take much U.S. military involvement there to draw that existing resistance closer to those objectionable elements our forces intend to suppress with their activity or assistance; much like in Afghanistan.

[robdogbucky]

41. Excuse me, but

this just sounds so much like what we have experienced so many times in the last decade in re: psyops. No more cold war for the MIC to feed on and terrorize us with. Now it has to be 'terrorist,' 'organizations,' like the one now bandied about as wielding such awesome power. Funny thing about this 'attempt,' is that it involved the underwear. I recall some statistics regarding odds of your underwear spontaneously exploding against the odds of any US citizen dying in a terrorist attack. Not to mention we constantly look like the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.

The dated article below speaks volumes:


Think Again: Homeland Security
By Benjamin Friedman July/August 2005

“All Americans Should Fear Terrorism”
That’s ridiculous. The odds of dying in a terrorist attack are minuscule. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the odds are about 1 in 88,000. The odds of dying from falling off a ladder are 1 in 10,010. Even in 2001, automobile crashes killed 15 times more Americans than terrorism. Heart disease, cancer, and strokes are the leading causes of death in the United States—not terrorism.

People overestimate risks they can picture and ignore those they cannot. Government warnings and 24–hour news networks make certain dangers, from shark attacks to terrorism, seem more prevalent than they really are. As a result, the United States squanders billions of dollars annually protecting states and locations that face no significant threat of terrorism. In 2003, Tulsa, Oklahoma, received $725,000 in port security funds. More than $4 million in 2005 federal antiterror funding will go to the Northern Mariana Islands. In 2003, Grand Forks County, North Dakota, received $1.5 million in federal funds to purchase trailers equipped to respond to nuclear attacks and more biochemical suits than it has police officers.

These small expenses add up. Federal spending on first responders grew from $616 million in 2001 to $3.4 billion in 2005, a 500 percent increase. Homeland security spending will approach $50 billion this year, not including missile defense—roughly equal to estimates of China’s defense spending. Yet pundits call for more. A 2003 Council on Foreign Relations report hyperbolically titled, Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared, recommends increasing spending on emergency responders to $25 billion per year. To his credit, the new secretary of homeland security, Michael...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3079&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3079

Now the CDC is on the Al Ciada payroll too?



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Uh, well they did take credit for the attempt.

:crazy:

[Edweird]

59. Yeah! All this talk about AQ in Yemen is complete fabrication. Whoever heard of such a thing?

[bigtree]

62. about a hundred 'al-Qaeda' there, the generals and intelligence officials say

. . . but, in the face of the dual insurgencies the Yemeni regime is threatened with (which have nothing at all to do with 'al-Qaeda' or crotch bombs), military intervention there (either assisted, ordered, or committed ourselves) threatens to escalate and aggravate the animosity and conflict in the country and the region which generates and perpetuates the violent cycle of attacks and reprisals. Slippery slope.