Say, you know who else wouldn’t get Osama bin Laden now?

posted at 10:01 am on May 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama and his campaign have accused Mitt Romney of lacking the fortitude to take out Osama bin Laden in the kind of raid Obama ordered a year ago.  Thanks to a new agreement Obama signed with Hamid Karzai, the Daily Caller reports, Romney wouldn’t even get the chance.  The new agreement signed on the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s demise would forbid exactly the kind of raid that Obama ordered, one originating from Afghanistan into Pakistan:

President Barack Obama has promised not to attack Pakistan-based al-Qaida leaders or fighters from bases inside Afghanistan.

The surprising commitment effectively bars Obama and his successors from launching another nighttime helicopter raid like the one that that killed Osama bin Laden. That raid has proven to be Obama’s primary foreign-policy success because it killed bin Laden, scooped up much intelligence data and shocked Pakistan.

That’s not the only option Obama has taken off the table in the new agreement, either:

Obama’s commitment will also end the use of secretive drone-attacks from Afghanistan. Those attacks have killed hundreds of al-Qaida leaders since the mid-2000s. They’ve also been very popular with U.S voters, and usually have had tacit Pakistan approval.

The unadvertised provision is buried in the deal that Afghan president Hamid Karzai and Obama signed with much campaign-style fanfare May 1 in Kabul. It could provide a legal shield for Pakistani-based al-Qaida’s leaders, front-line fighters, terrorism-planners, allied terror-leaders, funders, terror bases and terror training-grounds.

“The United States further pledges not to use Afghan territory or facilities as a launching point for attacks against other countries,” says the provision, found in paragraph 6b of the eight-page deal.

Some of those drone attacks have taken place from inside Pakistan, so the clause doesn’t completely end the effective drone missions that have destroyed al-Qaeda’s command structure and capabilities.  However, that kind of cooperation on drone attacks is extremely fragile, as the collateral damage creates an enormous amount of political pressure on Pakistan’s government.  Islamabad is already growing more hostile with the US over our refusal to formally apologize for the deaths of two dozen Pakistani soldiers in an errant attack a few months ago, and they have repeatedly told the Obama administration that they want the CIA and the drones out of Pakistan, although they seem to be allowing the attacks to continue, for now anyway.

Still, how cynical can one be to accuse a political opponent of lacking the testicular fortitude to launch the kind of mission Obama green-lighted a year ago while negotiating a pact that forbids them in the future anyway?  The only answer to this is that an American President might not feel bound to honor that part of the agreement, but that’s a poor answer.  That would call our commitment to the entire pact into question, as well as our credibility on other treaties and pacts around the world.  Besides, it doesn’t answer the question.  Obama accused Romney of not having the guts to make the call, while agreeing with Karzai to never make a similar call himself.  It’s hypocritical in the extreme, and the inclusion of such an agreement should have us questioning Obama’s intestinal fortitude in fighting terrorists in the region.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Thanks, everyone who voted this foreign affairs idiot into office.

totherightofthem on May 4, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Don’t all of Obama’s promises and statements have an expiration date?

Gladtobehere on May 4, 2012 at 10:05 AM

A No Kill Zone?

Nothing could go wrong…

Electrongod on May 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Obama is just making sure Panetta doesn’t do another end around him to take out Bin Laden’s heir…

Obama the coward had nothing to do with killing Osama Bin Laden, it was Leon Panetta who pulled the trigger.

And while we are still discussing Obama killing Osama with his bare hands this story continues to be ignored.

SWalker on May 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM

We all need to support Mitt Romney. He’s the only one who can save us.

Notorious GOP on May 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Unstinkingbelievable

cmsinaz on May 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Who has better fashion sense,

Hamid Karzai,

in his colorful robes and funny little hats,

or

Barack Obama,

in his blue-and-white sarong?

steebo77 on May 4, 2012 at 10:09 AM

How about if we just solve this by taking out Obama on Nov 6th.

hillsoftx on May 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Remind me what sound, according to Boy-King Hussein, is the prettiest on Earth?

Archivarix on May 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Remind me what sound, according to Boy-King Hussein, is the prettiest on Earth?

Archivarix on May 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Ummmm, Donald Trump looking Barack Obama right straight in the eye and pointing one finger at him and saying…


“YOU’RE FIRED”…

SWalker on May 4, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Forge a deal with India.

OldEnglish on May 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM

OK, so I am a cynic.

Does this “agreement” have to be ratified to come into force?

That Constitutional advise and consent provision? Must the Senate ratify it or simp0ly pass a resolution in support of it?

Or is it law simply because Obama wants it to be?

Have we been able to get the entire agreement in print, for all to read, or are there certain clauses or paragraphs that are being withheld?

How far can Afghanistan stray from the agreement and still hold us to our end?

I heard there were loopholes big enough to drive a truck through…mostly on the Afghan side.

If Obama has unilaterally tied one or both of our hands behind our backs and still provides Afghanistan with all the funding and equipment it desires…well, you can bet the farm that most of that money, our money, under the present Afghan regime, will never arrive in Kabul. USB will have a bundle to pass along to the Obama campaign. And the despots of the Karzai regime can plan their retirements in style…on our dime.

Seems the only transparency in this Administration is that more and more of us can see right through Obama and his minions.

coldwarrior on May 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Isn’t this the sort of thing that made Vietnam drag out so long? just arbitrarily not crossing some line even though you knew the bad guys might be there just to make some people happy.

gsherin on May 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Is there a town named Appomattox in Afganistan?

docflash on May 4, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Tying the hands of the next president. Dear Liar knows he’s going to lose and wants to kneecap Romney.

rbj on May 4, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Unstinkingbelievable

cmsinaz on May 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

…I didn’t read about WHAT was in the agreement here…did you?….I heard about it on all the major networks!

KOOLAID2 on May 4, 2012 at 10:21 AM

And while we are still discussing Obama killing Osama with his bare hands this story continues to be ignored.

SWalker on May 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Pisses me off to no end. I hate the lsm.

VegasRick on May 4, 2012 at 10:22 AM

…..and I would love to see who has jurisdiction over night raids now and if the ROE has gotten even worse.

This is full capitulation from a President who wants everyone to believe that killing Osama somehow means the war is over in Afghanistan and “smart power” has saved the day.

Baxter Greene on May 4, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Don’t all of Obama’s promises and statements have an expiration date?

Gladtobehere on May 4, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Yes they do — January 20, 2013, when President Romney is inaugurated and Obama departs the White House.

Donald Trump looking Barack Obama right straight in the eye and pointing one finger at him and saying…

“YOU’RE FIRED”…

SWalker on May 4, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Music to my ears! :)

jwolf on May 4, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Come on guys, I’m sure now that BO has signed this agreement, the terrorists (oops, I mean “freedom fighters”) will stay in their country’s borders right? Because, after all this time, we’ve learned that AQ and all those other countries always do that.
Do you ever wonder what goes through BO’s head when he does stuff like this? Does he think to himself, “I hope they like me after this! They should!” Meanwhile the terrorists just sit there laughing and thinking we’re a bunch of suckers.
Call him what you will, but Bush never would have signed that.

RadioAngel on May 4, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Pisses me off to no end. I hate the lsm.

VegasRick on May 4, 2012 at 10:22 AM

I don’t refer to them as the Fifth Column Treasonous Media for nothing. If America’s founding father’s were here today to see what the Fourth Estate has become… Well, take a really good look at this revolutionary War drawing of Bostons Famous Liberty Tree, the answer to how the founding fathers would treat today’s Fifth Column Treasonous Media is in the branches of that Tree…

SWalker on May 4, 2012 at 10:34 AM

WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 1, 2007 7:26pm EDT

(Reuters) – Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

I guess his “chief rival” was right. Or there are no more HVT’s in Pakistan- which he know…right?

Almost every person who knows anything about A-stan’s is aware the enemy comes and goes from Pakistan on a regular basis. Yet, now we are handcuffed?

Yes, I think naive is just about right.

Marcus Traianus on May 4, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Tying the hands of the next president. Dear Liar knows he’s going to lose and wants to kneecap Romney.

rbj on May 4, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Exactly right. But hey, some folks still think that re-electing ObaMao would be useful for “teaching the GOP a lesson.” The American people can’t afford that kind of stupidity.

cicerone on May 4, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Yes, I think naive is just about right.

Marcus Traianus on May 4, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Naive, NO, Treasonous, YES…

SWalker on May 4, 2012 at 10:38 AM

President Barack Obama has promised not to attack Pakistan-based al-Qaida leaders or fighters from bases inside Afghanistan.

The surprising commitment effectively bars Obama and his successors from launching another nighttime helicopter raid like the one that that killed Osama bin Laden. That raid has proven to be Obama’s primary foreign-policy success because it killed bin Laden, scooped up much intelligence data and shocked Pakistan.


Remember what Obama promised back in 2008:

“No. 3, we’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we’ve been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years,(Obama has given them billions more) they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.
And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.
…..
…..But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.

..so Obama ridiculed “peace agreements” with the Taliban…giving them money…..and the fact that al-qaeda/Taliban were afforded safe Haven in Pakistan.

Now Obama is begging the Taliban for a “peace agreement”…has been giving them billions of dollars…..and has not kept the Taliban/al-qaeda from maintaining safe haven there.

Obama stated plainly that Pakistan’s ability to provide safe Haven,support,funding,and training of terrorist had to be stopped or America would not be safe.

Not only has he not succeeded in this….our twisted relationship has gotten worse under his watch.What few drone attacks they allow us to do now primarily takes out rouge Taliban and other Taliban that threaten the ISI’s power base.The Taliban will now have even more free reign, and their ability to launch terrorist attacks just got easier with this agreement.

Baxter Greene on May 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Kool-aid
All hail

cmsinaz on May 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM

‘Thanks for the new agreement, Hamid, and here’s 2$B from my taxpayers for your help’. ‘I love those taxpayers, they are the gifts that keep on giving and giving and giving.’ ‘What, have I been here 7 hours already?’ ‘Gotta go to the base and get my photo op.’ ‘Remember, Hamid, I’ll have more flexibility after the election.’
sarc off.

Kissmygrits on May 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM

One can only hope the Senate will take “advise and consent” seriously enough to look into this.

It looks suspiciously like a treaty to me, but then I’m not a constitutional lawyer, or even an unconstitutional lawyer.

Drained Brain on May 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM

ObaMao betrays the SEALs by making sure that the effects of their accomplishments are diminished by appeasing this nation’s enemies. The SEALs killed OBL and now ObaMao has fixed it so that the SEALs wouldn’t be able to do their jobs in that part of the world again. Borderline treason on ObaMao’s part. But what else is new?

cicerone on May 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM

“The United States further pledges not to use Afghan territory or facilities as a launching point for attacks against other countries,” says the provision, found in paragraph 6b of the eight-page deal.

…the ISI looked Obama in the face and said “I won”

Baxter Greene on May 4, 2012 at 10:44 AM

But just look at all the money the US is sending these worms over years and years to come. These rop types hate the living guts out of us and WE still send them money!
L

letget on May 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

But just look at all the money the US is sending these worms over years and years to come. These rop types hate the living guts out of us and WE still send them money!
L

letget on May 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

That’s what the dhimmi ARE SUPPOSE TO DO.

A dhimmī (Arabic: ذمي‎ ḏimmī IPA: [ˈðɪmmiː]), (collectively أهل الذمة ahl al-ḏimmah/dhimmah, “the people of the dhimma”) is a non-Muslim subject of a Muslim state. Linguistically, the word means “one whose responsibility has been taken”.[1] This has to be understood in the context of the definition of state in Islam. Dhimma allows rights of residence in return for taxes.

SWalker on May 4, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Still, how cynical can one be to accuse a political opponent of lacking the testicular fortitude to launch the kind of mission Obama green-lighted a year ago while negotiating a pact that forbids them in the future anyway?

“That word ‘cynical’. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 10:53 AM

As long as we keep Karzai, a drug dealing anti-American gangster with terrorist ties happy…

CorporatePiggy on May 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM

The surprising commitment effectively bars Obama and his successors from launching another nighttime helicopter raid like the one that that killed Osama bin Laden….

That’s not the only option Obama has taken off the table in the new agreement, either:

Obama’s commitment will also end the use of secretive drone-attacks from Afghanistan.

Wait a minute, am I reading this correctly? So if Ayman Al-Zawahiri were to pop up on the radar screen in the Northwest Frontier Province tomorrow, we wouldn’t be able to do jack all about it?!?

Can this possibly be true?

Hayabusa on May 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Uh, he can make thid agreement now because he already got bin Laden….

plewis on May 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Uh, he can make thid agreement now because he already got bin Laden….

plewis on May 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM

And because there are no other terrorists in Pakistan using it as a staging ground, clearly.

CorporatePiggy on May 4, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Wait a minute, am I reading this correctly? So if Ayman Al-Zawahiri were to pop up on the radar screen in the Northwest Frontier Province tomorrow, we wouldn’t be able to do jack all about it?!?

Can this possibly be true?

Hayabusa on May 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Are you kidding? that is exactly what it is designed for.

SWalker on May 4, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Romney should just ignore this agreement and do what is right to minimize AQ and Taliban (Tollybahn, in ØbamaSpeake) no matter what the agreement formulation is. Screw Øbama!

ExpressoBold on May 4, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Uh, he can make thid agreement now because he already got bin Laden….

plewis on May 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM

LOL. I forgot. The War is over.

Of course, there never was a war to the Dog-Eater or his idiot administration. It was nothing but an “international contingency operation”, or some other such ridiculous BS.

You’re just another despicable, lying scumbag leftist. You people are death and nothing but a burden and threat to any civilized society unlucky enough to have you in our midst.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Uh, he can make thid agreement now because he already got bin Laden….

plewis on May 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM

And because there are no other terrorists in Pakistan using it as a staging ground, clearly.

CorporatePiggy on May 4, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Obama didn’t get bin Laden, Panetta did, and this is Obama’s way of making damned sure Panetta doesn’t get any more HLT…

SWalker on May 4, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Isn’t this the sort of thing that made Vietnam drag out so long? just arbitrarily not crossing some line even though you knew the bad guys might be there just to make some people happy.

gsherin on May 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM

♫♪ Ding Ding Ding ♫♪

Cambodia and Laos were allegedly off limits too. Had those morons LBJ, MacNamara, and Westmoreland displayed any smarts, let alone leadership, they would have shifted “Rolling Thunder” to where it belonged.
BUT! The intrepid warrior Jean Kerée took it upon himself to go after Charles in Cambodia on that “Christmas Eve that is seared, seared” into his memory. /sarc
Democrat poseurs, liars, and frauds, and clueless internationalists, have no idea how much they have, and continue to damage the United States.

|^^^^^^^^^^^\||\\\\\\\\
| NØ Øbama 2012 | ||°|”°””\___,
| _____________ ||__|_|__|___|);
/(@)@)””””´´ |@*|(@)(@)*|(@)

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on May 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Let me see… I think I remember when our troops in Afghanistan were forbiddent to carry weapons in certain areas of the country. Now we can’t go after the enemy unless they are in a certain area that the politicians call a war zone.

War is not a game, Obama. These are my countryment, brothers and sisters, serving my country. Obama and his minions need to be removed from office in Nov.

dahni on May 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM

…unless his feet are up on the oval office desk…is there EVER a picture where JugEars doesn’t have his legs crossed over tightly…like there is nothing there?

KOOLAID2 on May 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Uh, he can make thid agreement now because he already got bin Laden….

plewis on May 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM

All by himself, with his bare hands? I thought the Navy SEALS got bin Laden.

OK, Hot Gas Leftists, answer this simple question.

When the US Military under Bush murdered the two Hussein sons in cold blood, captured Saddam Hussein and then massacred Zarqawi in Iraq, you folks screamed that Bush was “creating more terrorists”.

How come we never hear that same kind of talk from you hypocrites now about O’bama, who not only ordered the military to take out bin Laden, but also greatly increased the number of drone strikes? Seems to me that he’s creating terrorists too, isn’t he?

I actually brought this up yesterday. None of the Leftists seemed to want to answer me then.

Del Dolemonte on May 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Romney should just ignore this agreement and do what is right to minimize AQ and Taliban (Tollybahn, in ØbamaSpeake) no matter what the agreement formulation is. Screw Øbama!

ExpressoBold on May 4, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Absolutely. I do not consider Barky my president (he’s inelgible and a thrid world retard, not an American president) and I do not consider the US bound by anything he says or does. Other countries ought to understand that Barky doesn’t represent America. And those nations that suck up to Barky can expect to be given the cold shoulder when the Indonesian is finally gone and in the clink for some of the many, many impeachable acts he’s committed during his illegal tenure.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Obama signed this agreement because it furthers the US geopolitical goals to choke off IRAN by securing the TAPI pipe line.

The TAPI pipeline ensures that Pakistan is brought under Western influence as well as getting the supplies of gas it needs and blocking off Iran’s export of gas to the east and potentially to India and even Chinese markets. Despite the fact this is causing problems in Pakistan.

It is also essential to secure TAPI in order to block off Iranian influence to the east and the export of its gas to Pakistan and India via the rival IPI Pipeline. Not only would such a pipeline supply gas to Pakistan at four times a cheaper price, it would tend to negate the purpose of western strategy.

The first is to encircle Iran from both West( Iraq) and the East. The TAPI Pipeline’s construction means that the signatories are bound to a project that unites Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India in a community of mutual interest from which Iran is cut off and excluded.

It is a policy that dovetails with the ultimate goal of “regime change” in Iran which controls the third largest reserves of gas on the globe and copious oil. If Afghanistan is not under Western control, then other regional powers can deal directly with Iran without Western interests being considered.

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM

while agreeing with Karzai to never make a similar call himself.

We are going to find out Obama agreed to a lot of things with Karzai that is going to turn our stomachs.Obama was willing to do just about anything to get cover for his surrender.
Karzai is going to have a lot more say in what our military can and can’t do in Afghanistan now.I am sure the highly successful night raids will be effectively nurtured ….probably will have to get advanced permission from Karzai’s end….
…………..this is who will have more control over our operations:

Gulf Widens Between U.S. and a More Volatile Karzai

By ROD NORDLAND, ALISSA J. RUBIN and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/world/asia/gulf-widens-between-us-and-an-increasingly-hostile-karzai.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print


This from karzai:

The Americans in Afghanistan are “demons.”
They claim they burned Korans by mistake, but really those were “Satanic acts that will never be forgiven by apologies.”

The strongest such outburst came Friday. “Let’s pray for God to rescue us from these two demons,” Mr. Karzai said, apparently holding back tears at a meeting with relatives of the massacre victims, and clearly referring to the United States and the Taliban in the same breath. “There are two demons in our country now.”

…Karzai has been on a full tilt to suck up to the Taliban and secure relationships ever since Obama enacted his “exit date strategy”.
Obama made it clear we had no real commitment there to succeed….Karzai knows he will be at the wrong end of a rope if he didn’t forge some relationships quickly.
While our Soldiers fight their a$$es off in Afghanistan…Obama’s policies have led to the Taliban taking back over from the top down.As our troops draw down or move on…Taliban/al-qaeda reestablish themselves …remember when democrats yelled about “not enough troops” in Iraq to hold and secure…..short memories there.The Afghan Army and police force are in so way ready to maintain security (or they would be by now) with our Soldiers taking more causalities from them than they do in battle.
This is who Obama wants to hand things off to so that Afghanistan doesn’t turn back into a terrorist launch pad??????
….what a joke this administration is.
Now our Soldiers will be in the line of fire just to provide Obama with a little bit of political cover from the disaster to his polls all out surrender would deal him.Not fighting to win…not fighting to complete the mission or secure Afghanistan…..fighting to keep Obama’s poll numbers up.

If Obama wants to quit and get out…he needs to man up and say so.Get our troops out of harms way if they are not going to be able to fight their fight and fight to win.

Obama’s legacy will be that the jihadist gained more power and control during his Presidency than at any time in modern History.

Baxter Greene on May 4, 2012 at 11:19 AM

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Yeah … getting Pakistan and India together is going to work out just great.

Your pathetic attempt at an explanation was ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 11:23 AM

President Barack Obama has promised not to attack Pakistan-based al-Qaida leaders or fighters from bases inside Afghanistan.

In unrelated news, moving companies Atlas Van Lines and Mayflower report unexplained surge in requests for costs associated with moves to Pakistan from New York, Chicago, and Detroit.

BobMbx on May 4, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Romney should just ignore this agreement and do what is right to minimize AQ and Taliban (Tollybahn, in ØbamaSpeake) no matter what the agreement formulation is. Screw Øbama!

ExpressoBold on May 4, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Romney should examine all the facets of this deal before he chooses a direction. Having said that Obama giving AQ and the Tall ee bhan any slack is very stupid indeed. It boils down to more dead American GIs for nothing.

dogsoldier on May 4, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Who has better fashion sense,

Hamid Karzai,

in his colorful robes and funny little hats,

or

Barack Obama,

in his blue-and-white sarong?

steebo77 on May 4, 2012 at 10:09 AM

In that photo, I was thinking that Karzai was suffering from an incident with a bottle of glue and a couch.

BobMbx on May 4, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Uh, he can make thid agreement now because he already got bin Laden….

plewis on May 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Karzai doesn’t give a sh!t about Bin Laden.
His main concerns lies with Omar,Haqqani network,and the ISI.

Maybe you missed the memo but Osama was reduced to combing in “Hair care for men”…communicating through courier’s….and jerking off to Jena Jameson’s greatest hits.Not exactly running the show anymore and hadn’t been for years.

…. if you were actually educated on what you speak of,you would know that Afghanistan has gotten worse and the Taliban/al-qaeda have gotten stronger since Osama’s death…not the other way around genius.

This agreement you like so much also ensures that Zawahiri and other la-qaeda leaders in Pakistan remain untouched…..congratulations liberal.

Baxter Greene on May 4, 2012 at 11:29 AM

From being evil ‘Islamofascists’, the Taliban have now been rebranded and downgraded to not being enemies of the USA. Ever since the US and the Taliban have reached an agreement on the TAPI pipe line.

‘The Taliban are not an enemy of the U.S. and should not be talked about in such terms, Joe Biden has claimed.

In an interview with Newsweek, Mr Biden warned against labelling the Taliban as an enemy.
He said: ‘That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests.’
Biden is talking about the TAPI pipe line which runs threw Helmland where the vast majority of troops have been killed.

The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv notes: “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created [in the Afghan war], one is struck by the fact that they are COMPLETELY IDENTICAL to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean and placed exactly where the pumping stations are going up.”

The aim is to provide security for the construction of the pipeline that is due to be completed by 2016 by optimistic estimates. The TAPI Pipeline is and will remain crucial to the creation of what US diplomats and Hillary Clinton herself call “The New Silk Road”.

Richard Boucher, US Assistant Secretary of State, made that clear in 2007: “One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan,” and to link South and Central Asia “so that energy can flow to the south. The reasons for this lie not only with Russia.

In 2009, George Krol, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, said to Congress that a prime US interest in Central Asia was “to increase development and diversification of the region’s energy resources and supply routes.”.

“ISLAMABAD: The US has made a generous offer to finance the multibillion-dollar Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, an implicit gesture to lure Pakistan away from the Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline deal….Sources inform The Express Tribune that the Export-Import Bank (EIB) of the United States as well as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), an “independent” US agency, have offered Pakistan financing for TAPI”

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Oh, so that’s why the Obama administration is saying the War on Terror is over. It isn’t really over, we just can’t fight it anymore. Got it.

RebeccaH on May 4, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Romney should examine all the facets of this deal before he chooses a direction. Having said that Obama giving AQ and the Tall ee bhan any slack is very stupid indeed. It boils down to more dead American GIs for nothing.

dogsoldier on May 4, 2012 at 11:25 AM

.
My reaction is predicated on this fact: Ayman al-Zawahiri is not going to abide by any agreement (CONTRACT) signed by Ø and Karzai the Whiner… if AaZ pops up on the radar in Pok-ee-ston and begins making faces at Marines and Army they should not be prohibited from striking back. AaZ will assume carte blanche because he has no respect for the American-Afghan agreement that Ø intends to use to handcuff the next President. This is a stupid, craven, venal, self-absorbed, loathsome, selfish, greedy, high-and-mighty PoS move by Ø. It should be ignored and let the Pakis find out the hard way. What are they going to do – drop a bomb on us? Turds.

ExpressoBold on May 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM

The Americans in Afghanistan are “demons.”
They claim they burned Korans by mistake, but really those were “Satanic acts that will never be forgiven by apologies.”

I call your charred Korans, and raise you a Daniel Pearl.

BobMbx on May 4, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Not a single word in the article about what, if anything, America gets in RETURN for all these concessions.

Does this still have to be ratified by Congress? Or is that yet another precident Obama has done away with?

logis on May 4, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Wait a minute, am I reading this correctly? So if Ayman Al-Zawahiri were to pop up on the radar screen in the Northwest Frontier Province tomorrow, we wouldn’t be able to do jack all about it?!?

Can this possibly be true?

Hayabusa on May 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Obama will claim that we still have cooperation with Pakistan and Afghanistan to go after “al-qaeda” targets.

What he won’t emphasize is that we will have to seek permission from the very people who want them protected.

One of the main reasons the Osama raid was so successful was because Pakistan was not in the loop.

We will get a lot of tough talk about “keeping the heat on al-qaeda” while Obama tries to convince everyone that the Taliban are not one and the same with them and that the leadership in this region will actually help us eradicate them.

Our main leverage was our strong military on the ground that helped provide a strong fighting force and provide room to gather intelligence.That is leaving right along with any chance of winning this war.

Let’s hear it for Obama….

Obama got Osama but lost the war…..

This would be like celebrating killing Hitler while the swastika flag flew over London.

Baxter Greene on May 4, 2012 at 11:39 AM

As Dunya News reported that US state department press officer, speaking under conditions of anonymity claimed,

” The proposed Pakistan-Iran pipeline, if built, could raise concerns under the Iran Sanctions Act. We have raised this issue with the Government of Pakistan and are encouraging it to seek alternatives. Transactions such as these weaken international community pressure on Iran to fulfill its international obligations and address concerns about its nuclear activities”

“ISLAMABAD: The US has made a generous offer to finance the multibillion-dollar Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, an implicit gesture to lure Pakistan away from the Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline deal….Sources inform The Express Tribune that the Export-Import Bank (EIB) of the United States as well as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), an “independent” US agency, have offered Pakistan financing for TAPI”

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Baxter Greene on May 4, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Ditto²
Thanks for the re-cap. It should be national news.
(whatever that is anymore)
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on May 4, 2012 at 11:46 AM

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 11:41 AM

.
This “triangulation” strategy of isolating Iran with a TAPI pipeline won’t work for the most basic of reasons: al-Zaawahiri and his AQ henchmen will blow it up and kill the workers, time after time after time. They will suck up more dollars through liberal Democrat ineptitude than all the effective military action accomplished under Dubya. Ignoring that simple, basic fact is folly. F O L L Y ….. a fools errand.
.
Freeing Iraq and establishing a sound democratically-elected government there was supposed to be the counter to IslamoFacsist Iran, not a stupid pipeline subject to “blood for oil” liberal Democrat policies. Of course, the loudmouth liberals, including Ø, had heartburn with everything George Bush did, crybabies and whiners that they are. They wanted to get to just this point, where they could theoretically hamstring a muscular, effective, military presence in the most volatile regions of the world. Turds.

ExpressoBold on May 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM

July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued Niaz Naik. [Source: Calcutta Telegraph]

One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs”—-an invasion—-or “carpets of gold”—-the pipeline. [Brisard and Dasquie, 2002]

Naik contends that Tom Simons made the “carpets” statement. Simons claims, “It’s possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can’t resist the temptation to be mischievous.”[Salon, 9/16/2002]

Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” [BBC, 2001]

The Guardian reports in June 2001 that “reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan exist[s] by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north.”

India Reacts – American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JUNE 2001.
In this article published in India in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government announces that it will support America’s PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.

“Indian officials say that India will only play the role of “facilitator” while the US will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.”

BBC – American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.
US ‘planned attack on Taliban’
“The wider objective was to oust the Taliban”

By the BBC’s George Arney
“The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taliban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place – possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.”

In early August, a senior Taliban official in the defense ministry will tell journalist Hamid Mir that “[W]e believe Americans are going to invade Afghanistan and they will do this before October 15, 2001, and justification for this would be either one of two options: Taliban got control of Afghanistan or a big major attack against American interests either inside America or elsewhere in the world.”

MSNBC Reports that President Bush signed detailed plans for military operations in Afghanistan two days BEFORE Sept. 11
By Jim Miklaszewski and Alex Johnson msnbc.com and NBC News May 16, 2002

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 11:57 AM

MSNBC Reports … blah blah blah
JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 11:57 AM

.
Really? C’mon, are you daft?

ExpressoBold on May 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I don’t like Obama but I have to admit that the “triangulation” strategy of isolating Iran with the TAPI pipeline was started by Bush.

The rival Pipeline to the TAPI is now targeted as part of the sanctions on Iran. After all, 10 years in Afghanistan has to be of some use and “worth it”.

‘The Iran pipeline, on the other hand, faces the equally deadly American veto. The US, through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has already floated the threat of sanctions should Pakistan go through with the proposal. The US has also been making use of back channels to put funding for the project into peril. A Chinese bank withdrew its promise of money for the pipeline after quiet US intervention’. ( my italics ).

Also reported is US interest in securing for US firms a stake in constructing the TAPI Pipeline,

‘“A couple of major US oil companies are interested,” said Daniel Stein, senior advisor to the special envoy for Eurasian Energy in the United States. “We would like to see a US company involved at some point in TAPI.” He declined to name the companies. TAPI is considered to be consistent with US’s declared policy of linking Central and South Asia and diversifying export routes for Turkmen gas’…

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM

If this loser gets elected for another term. I’m seriously thinking about moving to Canada!

Conservative_Hippie on May 4, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Yellow. Obama maybe half black but he’s all yellow.

shick on May 4, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I don’t like Obama but I have to admit that the “triangulation” strategy of isolating Iran with the TAPI pipeline was started by Bush.

That has nothing to do with Barky allying with the Taliban and trying to sign away American security.

What the hell is wrong with you?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Wow!

OxyCon on May 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Forge a deal with India.

OldEnglish on May 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I agree, since in a battle between Kali and Allah the latter would fast flee to join the Shi’a 12th imam at the bottom of that well in Qom.

Annar on May 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

The Taliban tried to hand Bin Laden over to the U.S. dozens of times before and after 9/11. According to the State Department cables and many government officials such as the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, Robert Grenier, as well as several MSM news stories, The Taliban had killed Bin Laden’s body Guards and arrested Bin Laden before 9/11. They even offered to pay for the U.S. to conduct a missile strike on the prisoner location of Bin laden before 9/11.

In 1999, the Taliban sent a group of 10 officers to replace Bin Laden’s own bodyguards, touching off an exchange of gunfire, according to a New York Times story of Mar. 4, 1999. Three days later, bodyguards working for Taliban intelligence and the Foreign Affairs Ministry personnel took control of Bin Laden’s compound near Kandahar and took away his satellite telephone, according to the U.S. and Taliban sources cited by the Times.

Taliban official Abdul Hakeem Mujahid, who was then in the Taliban Embassy in Pakistan, confirmed that the 10 Taliban bodyguards had been provided to bin Laden to “supervise him and observe that he will not contact any foreigner or use any communication system in Afghanistan,” according to the Times story. The Taliban was working with the U.S. so they would take Bin Laden off their hands.

Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil says in the meeting, “You can have him whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him.” Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirmed that such proposals had been made to US officials. But a “political decision” was made by US officials not to continue the negotiations.

About 20 more meetings on giving up Bin Laden took place up until 9/11, all fruitless. [Washington Post, 10/29/2001]

CIA station Chief Robert Grenier, said about the meetings; “They were saying, ‘Do something to help us give him up.’… I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck.” The Taliban also proposed to hold bin Laden, who was at this time a prisoner, in one location long enough for the US to locate and kill him. The Taliban became so frustrated that they even offered to pay for the missile strike on Bin Laden. However, this offer was also refused by US officials. [Intelligence Newsletter, 4/19/2001]

The pressure on bin Laden by the Taliban in 1999 up to 9/11 also extended to threats to eliminate al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan. An e-mail from two leading Arab jihadists in Afghanistan to Bin Laden in July 1999, later found on a laptop previously belonging to al Qaeda in and purchased by the Wall Street Journal, referred to “problems between you and the Leader of the Faithful (Mullah Omar) ” as a “crisis”.

The e-mail, published in an article by Alan Cullison in the September 2004 issue of The Atlantic, said, “Talk about closing down the camps has spread.” The message even suggested that the al Qaeda jihadists feared the Taliban regime could go so far as to “kick them out” of Afghanistan.

After having Bin Laden arrested and his bodyguards killed, Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, entered a phone conversation between a State Department official and one of his aides. The Taliban leader said he was “open to dialogue” with the United States and according to the State Department cable reporting the conversation. Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, asked the U.S. for help in eliminating his Bin laden problem and even gave the coordinates to the U.S. for a missile strike. The Taliban had even offered to pay for the missile strike. All the above was BEFORE 9/11!

September 16, 2001: Taliban Said to Agree to All US Demands

A meeting takes place between Taliban and US government representatives in the city of Quetta, Pakistan. Afghan-American businessman Kabir Mohabbat serves as a middleman. Mohabbat explains that the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden, extradite foreign members of al-Qaeda who are wanted in their home countries, and shut down bin Laden’s bases and camps. However, some days later he is told the US position has changed and the Taliban must surrender or be killed.

Later in the month, the Taliban again agrees to hand over bin Laden unconditionally, but the US replies that “the train had moved.” [CBS News, 9/25/2001

“President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden” [Guardian 10/2001]

November 19, 2001: Rumsfeld Says US Does Not Want Taliban to Surrender, Does Not Want to Directly Take Prisoners [US Department of Defense, 11/19/2001; London Times, 11/20/2001]

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

LOL.

At least I know you’re just a troll, now.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I see that Karzai is wearing his lucky hat.

onlineanalyst on May 4, 2012 at 12:23 PM

The difference between this war and Vietnam is that Barry Soetoro doesn’t even have the guts for a drone equivalent of Operation Linebacker II before we retreat.

cane_loader on May 4, 2012 at 12:31 PM

@ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 12:22 PM

How am I a troll for simply demonstrating that the “triangulation” strategy of isolating Iran with the TAPI pipeline was started by Bush.

This is a long strategy in geopolitical energy war.

The need to secure Afghanistan has always been for the West’s geopolitical strategies as regards Central Asia,(9/11 was organised mostly in Europe Germany to be exact).

The endgame is to secure the construction of the TAPI Pipeline. The reason the US is there is that it still has yet to secure the pipeline route which is intended to run from the Dauletadbad Gas Field in Turkmenistan through both Afghanistan’s and Pakistan’s most volatile regions on to India.

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 12:32 PM

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

What is the source of your information?

Links?

cane_loader on May 4, 2012 at 12:34 PM

(9/11 was organised mostly in Europe Germany to be exact).

Incorrect. Germany was just the base of a cell. You like spewing this sort of BS.

The reason the US is there is that it still has yet to secure the pipeline route which is intended to run from the Dauletadbad Gas Field in Turkmenistan through both Afghanistan’s and Pakistan’s most volatile regions on to India.

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I don’t even know what to say to this. You’re a nut. And a troll.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 12:37 PM

@cane_loader on May 4, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Please be specific and I will gladly post links.

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 12:38 PM

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 12:38 PM

I’m surprised you didn’t claim that Bush kept the Afghan war going by telling bin laden “bring it on”. Did you forget that? You need to post that next time, as it goes well with the rest of the BS you’re espousing. About as accurate in the interpretation, too.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 12:43 PM

How am I a troll for simply demonstrating that the “triangulation” strategy of isolating Iran with the TAPI pipeline was started by Bush.

Let’s end this:

Are you implying that Bush would have signed this same agreement? Is that your asinine point?

LOL.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 12:48 PM

@ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 12:43 PM

I posted quotes by MSM and US government officials so how in the world do you claim its just my “interpretation”?

In an interview with Newsweek, Mr Biden warned against labelling the Taliban as an enemy.
He said: ‘That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests.’
Biden is talking about the TAPI pipe line which runs threw Helmland where the vast majority of troops have been killed.

‘The Taliban are not an enemy of the U.S. and should not be talked about in such terms, Joe Biden has claimed.

“ISLAMABAD: The US has made a generous offer to finance the multibillion-dollar Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, an implicit gesture to lure Pakistan away from the Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline deal….Sources inform The Express Tribune that the Export-Import Bank (EIB) of the United States as well as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), an “independent” US agency, have offered Pakistan financing for TAPI”

The aim is to provide security for the construction of the pipeline that is due to be completed by 2016 by optimistic estimates. The TAPI Pipeline is and will remain crucial to the creation of what US diplomats and Hillary Clinton herself call “The New Silk Road”.

The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv notes: “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created [in the Afghan war], one is struck by the fact that they are COMPLETELY IDENTICAL to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean and placed EXACTLY where the pumping stations are going up.”

Richard Boucher, US Assistant Secretary of State, made that clear in 2007: “One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan,” and to link South and Central Asia “so that energy can flow to the south. The reasons for this lie not only with Russia.

In 2009, George Krol, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, said to Congress that a prime US interest in Central Asia was “to increase development and diversification of the region’s energy resources and supply routes.”.

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I posted quotes by MSM and US government officials so how in the world do you claim its just my “interpretation”?

What does any of this have to do with Barky trying to sign away US security?

And answer my question, since you defended your idiocy with “Bush started the pipeline talk blah blah blah”, are you implying that Bush would have signed this same ridiculous “agreement”?

Otherwise, what’s the point of your BS?

ANd your MSM sources are untrustworthy, so I don’t know why you think they mean anything (even if there were a connection between the tripe you are spewing and Barky assaulting American interests, again, which there isn’t).

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

LOL.

At least I know you’re just a troll, now.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Yeah, I just updated my troll list.

farsighted on May 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM

@cane_loader on May 4, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Please be specific and I will gladly post links.

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 12:38 PM

What I meant is that you’re copying and pasting a lot of stuff but providing no links at all. It would be good to look at what you’ve posted in context. If you have access to the info, you probably have access to the links, and so this would increase the effect of your posts.

cane_loader on May 4, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I don’t like Obama but I have to admit that the “triangulation” strategy of isolating Iran with the TAPI pipeline was started by Bush.

The rival Pipeline to the TAPI is now targeted as part of the sanctions on Iran. After all, 10 years in Afghanistan has to be of some use and “worth it”.

‘The Iran pipeline, on the other hand, faces the equally deadly American veto. The US, through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has already floated the threat of sanctions should Pakistan go through with the proposal. The US has also been making use of back channels to put funding for the project into peril. A Chinese bank withdrew its promise of money for the pipeline after quiet US intervention’. ( my italics ).

Also reported is US interest in securing for US firms a stake in constructing the TAPI Pipeline,

‘“A couple of major US oil companies are interested,” said Daniel Stein, senior advisor to the special envoy for Eurasian Energy in the United States. “We would like to see a US company involved at some point in TAPI.” He declined to name the companies. TAPI is considered to be consistent with US’s declared policy of linking Central and South Asia and diversifying export routes for Turkmen gas’…

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM

The above is an example of a lot of info with zero links. You need to put some links in to let people read things for themselves.

cane_loader on May 4, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Yeah, I just updated my troll list.

farsighted on May 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM

JustTheFarts reminds me of an old troll (from other sites) called jukeboxgrad. Same sh#t.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

July-August 1999: Taliban Leaders Visit U.S.
A consultant of Unocal hosts their visit and some Taliban visits to the US are paid for by Unocal.

Unocal had the largest share, the “Central Asian Gas Pipeline” (CentGas) consortium had six other partners, including Halliburton—the next largest shareholder.

May 23, 2001: Former Unocal Employee Becomes Bush’s Special Assistant to Middle East and Central Asia
“It was Khalilzad—when he was a huge Taliban fan—who conducted the risk analysis for Unocal (Union Oil Company of California) for the infamous proposed $2 billion, 1,500 kilometer-long Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan [TAP] gas pipeline.” [Asia Times, 12/25/2003]

After 9/11, he will be appointed as special envoy to Afghanistan (see January 1, 2002) and then US ambassador to Afghanistan (see November 2003).

During the Clinton years, he worked for Unocal. [US Department of State, 2001; Independent, 1/10/2002] He previously worked under Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and helped him write a controversial 1992 plan for US world domination.(see March 8, 1992) [New York Times, 3/23/2003] He was a member of the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century.

On October 7, 2001 the carpet of bombs is unleashed over Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy—-Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown.

Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—-also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq.)

Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan meet on February 8, 2002, sign an agreement for a new pipeline, and the way forward is open for Unocal once more.

Is it just a mere coincidence that the new Afghanistan President appointed by America, and both the Afghan and Iraqi Ambassadors appointed by America, (all former Unocal Consultants), were working with Bush when he signed orders approving the invasion of Afghanistan?

I repeat; This is a long strategy in geopolitical energy war.

The need to secure Afghanistan has always been for the West’s geopolitical strategies as regards Central Asia,(9/11 was organised mostly in Europe, Germany to be exact).

The endgame is to secure the construction of the TAPI Pipeline. The reason the US is there is that it still has yet to secure the pipeline route which is intended to run from the Dauletadbad Gas Field in Turkmenistan through both Afghanistan’s and Pakistan’s most volatile regions on to India.

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Much of the same was posted two months ago…including…

BBC,MSNBC, Reports that President Bush signed detailed plans for military operations in Afghanistan two days BEFORE Sept. 11

JustTheFacts on March 9, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I smell Truther.

farsighted on May 4, 2012 at 1:13 PM

And while we are still discussing Obama killing Osama with his bare hands this story continues to be ignored.

SWalker on May 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Not to nitpick here, but I think that a 64 page draft contempt citation against Eric Holder is not exactly “ignoring this story”

AZfederalist on May 4, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I smell Truther.

farsighted on May 4, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Heh. Sounds about right.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 1:20 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM

What does any of this have to do with Barky trying to sign away US security?

And answer my question, since you defended your idiocy with “Bush started the pipeline talk blah blah blah”, are you implying that Bush would have signed this same ridiculous “agreement”?

Otherwise, what’s the point of your BS?

ANd your MSM sources are untrustworthy, so I don’t know why you think they mean anything (even if there were a connection between the tripe you are spewing and Barky assaulting American interests, again, which there isn’t).
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I don’t like the strategy and I don’t agree with the strategy but its JustTheFacts and it started with Bush and is being continued by Obama despite the FACT that I disagree with it.

I cant hide my head in the sand and pretend that the war is about something else that could be easier to call “justifiable”. I have no choice but to except JustTheFacts that this war is part of a larger geopolitical energy war.

The TAPI Pipeline is significant as it means that Turkmenistan gas is diverted southwards and away from Russia which previously had a monopoly of pipeline routes westwards, of crucial concern for new NATO states in the former Eastern Europe that are wary of Russia’s control over it’s energy supply.

It is also essential for the US to secure TAPI in order to block off Iranian influence to the east and the export of its gas to Pakistan and India via the rival IPI Pipeline. Not only would such a pipeline supply gas to Pakistan at four times a cheaper price, it would tend to negate the purpose of western strategy.

The first is to encircle Iran from both West( Iraq) and the East. The TAPI Pipeline’s construction means that the signatories are bound to a project that unites Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India in a community of mutual interest from which Iran is cut off and excluded.

It is a policy that dovetails with the ultimate goal of “regime change” in Iran which controls the third largest reserves of gas on the globe and copious oil. If Afghanistan is not under Western control, then other regional powers can deal directly with Iran without Western interests being considered.

This is considered particularly ominous when the US is obsessed with securing energy diversification when 60% of its oil comes from abroad. The gas from TAPI is a potential source of Liquified Natural Gas ( LNG ) and the last thing the US or European states want is China to gain prominent stakes in the flow of gas.

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I smell Truther.

farsighted on May 4, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Heh. Sounds about right.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 1:20 PM

The tactic of repeating failrly long dumps of un-cited but seemingly authentic quote mined “facts” is familiar.

farsighted on May 4, 2012 at 1:30 PM

This is considered particularly ominous when the US is obsessed with securing energy diversification when 60% of its oil comes from abroad.

Abroad? You mean Canada and Mexico, right?

When you go to Canada or Mexico do you tell your friends that you are “going abroad”? ROFLMAO.

Okay, I’m done with you. You’re too stupid for words.

Later, troll.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Uh, he can make thid agreement now because he already got bin Laden….

plewis on May 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Your statement is incomprehensible, at best; complete gibberish, at worst.

This looks suspiciously like a treaty and if not (ie, it’s an Executive Agreement), it won’t last past O’s reign of terror, anyway as it likely isn’t binding on future presidents.

If it’s a treaty, the Senate Repubs better get off their lazy butts and stop ratification. Period.

totherightofthem on May 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM

The new agreement signed on the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s demise would forbid exactly the kind of raid that Obama ordered

I guess Zawahiri is breathing a sigh of relief.

crosspatch on May 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM

You can read all the Republican officials quotes as well as MSM stories about the TAPI pipe line and the US strategy regarding its geopolitical energy war here:

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Unocal&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Truther — confirmed.

farsighted on May 4, 2012 at 1:43 PM

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I’m not going to judge you right or wrong or determine that you’re a troll, based upon what you’ve posted, but I’m also not going to take your posts at face value without some links.

cane_loader on May 4, 2012 at 1:56 PM

JustTheFacts on May 4, 2012 at 1:25 PM

OK, I didn’t see your last post, where you linked to historycommons.

I do see some attribution in there, but still no links in there. The owners of the site would do well for themselves to go back and add hyperlinks. It’s an aggregator site so I will have to take some time to evaluate that site. It will take time to dig out the source material. Interesting info, so when I get a little time, I will examine it more.

Of course, given the importance of securing oil pipelines, etc., this is all in the mix.

Thanks for the extracted info, and I hope that it is presented in a scholarly format, instead of being agenda-driven.

cane_loader on May 4, 2012 at 2:01 PM

This looks suspiciously like a treaty and if not (ie, it’s an Executive Agreement), it won’t last past O’s reign of terror, anyway as it likely isn’t binding on future presidents.

If it’s a treaty, the Senate Repubs better get off their lazy butts and stop ratification. Period.

totherightofthem on May 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM

BINGO.

This is a treaty. it is meant to bring an end to a war. This must be brought to the U.S. Senate for ratification. We have to put a stop, NOW, to this idea of the president just going off and sending the country to war without calling it so, and then making treaties with enemies who have been bombed by the U.S. military.

I can see why foreigners would be scared and anti-American, when, by all appearances, the U.S. presidency has gone completely rogue.

Clinton did it to U.S. citizens at Waco, and 0bama is doing it to citizens of Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan.

If we don’t get ahold of this, we have become a de-facto dictatorship.

cane_loader on May 4, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2