That’s the conclusion of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI).
The heads of the Senate and House intelligence committees said Sunday the Taliban was gaining ground, just days after President Barack Obama made a surprise trip to Afghanistan and touted the progress made in the war on terror. “I think we’d both say that what we found is that the Taliban is stronger,” said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein on CNN’s “State of the Union,” while sitting with Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan.
From the “just about too stupid to be believed file” comes this story.
Mohammad Ashan, a mid-level Taliban commander in Paktika province, strolled toward a police checkpoint in the district of Sar Howza with a wanted poster bearing his own face. He demanded the finder’s fee referenced on the poster: $100.
Al-Qa’ida has been forced into retreat as the flow of funds to the terrorist network is steadily choked off, a senior American official said yesterday.
In the first half of this year, al-Qa’ida’s core leadership was compelled to make four public appeals for cash, complaining in one case of a “weakness in operations because of lack of money”.
Part of the reason for this is that some funding is believed to have gone to the Taliban instead.
This financial squeeze has compounded the problems faced by “core al-Qa’ida”. Highly effective attacks launched by American Predator drones have eliminated a raft of its most able leaders. Experts believe that Osama bin Laden’s network is under immense pressure inside its last redoubts in the tribal areas lining Pakistan’s north-west frontier.
David Cohen, the assistant secretary at the US Treasury responsible for countering terrorist finance, said that al-Qa’ida’s recent appeal for funds showed its “financial predicament”.
He added: “We assess that al-Qa’ida is in its weakest financial condition in several years, and that, as a result, its influence is waning. This success is important. It is a sign we are moving in the right direction.”
While it’s all to the good that we’re choking off al-Qa’ida’s money supply, I am not so sure that having some of it go to the Taliban is really that much of an improvement, especially since what we’re currently fighting in Afghanistan is more Taliban than al-Qa’ida.
I thought I hadn’t awakened from my sleep and was still dreaming when I heard that our most highly esteemed potentate and savior of the world, President Barack Hussein Obama, had won the Nobel Peace Prize [Article – Obama says he’ll accept Nobel as ‘call to action’].
President Obama was gracious in his acceptance speech. He had the same feeling of shock and surprise that millions upon millions of people experienced when it was announced that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. He acknowledged that he was not deserving of the prize and didn’t view the award “as a recognition of my own accomplishments,” but rather as a recognition of goals he has set for the U.S. and the world. Mr. Obama said, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize.” But, he said, “I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century.”
What accomplishments? Community organizing? Being a state senator? Performing the duties of a U.S. Senator for the sum total of two years? Talking about hope and change? By transformative figures, I am guessing that President Obama is excluding the late bloodthirsty terrorist Yasser Arafat. It should give us all a warm fuzzy that Obama is accepting the award as a “call to action”. You mean like giving the barbaric Taliban in Afghanistan a role in the government there [Article – Obama Focusing on al Qaeda, not Taliban]? Read More…
President Obama stated that “victory is not our goal” in Afghanistan:
I guess victory wasn’t the goal in Iraq, either. Oh I forgot, you weren’t responsible for that victory, Mr. President. You just have to tie up loose ends, that’s all. Excluding Iraq, I guess victory is not the goal anywhere there are “overseas contingency operations” (global war on terror). According to the esteemed savior of the world and exalted potentate, “god” (with a small “g”) Barack Obama, victory is reserved for when American forces are triumphant over enemy forces originating from and/or representing aggressor nations. Just like when the Japanese Empire and Emperor Hirohito signed the documents of surrender before General MacArthur on the U.S.S. Missouri. Okie dokie, gotcha!
First of all, this is a slap in the face to all American military personnel everywhere. If we aren’t in the fight to win, what are we in it for? To sort of win? To achieve a stalemate? To slap the enemy on the hand and tell them never to start any more trouble? To place handcuffs on them and throw them in a holding cell for a “time out”? If you’re not going to call it “victory”, Mr. President, what are you going to call it? A successful overseas intervention?
Second of all, no matter how leftist politicians and armchair generals choose to label it, we are still at war with evil extremist Islamists who want to kill us. They do not want to sit down and talk to anybody who is an American. They don’t want to hold hands and sing “Kumbaya”. They don’t want to sit down and drink a beer with any of us (it’s against their religious beliefs, anyway). This isn’t a counseling session or intervention—quit treating it like one. The only way to deal with aggressive, evil, murdering, cowardly, homicidal, tyrannical organizations and governments is to defeat them. For Al Qaeda and the Taliban, their defeat would be achieved only through military force, after which victory would be realized.
Thirdly, leftists in the United States like to brandish the articles of the Geneva Convention and assign the rights of U.S. citizens to murderous Islamist thugs when it is convenient and efficacious to do so. President Obama has officially recognized Al Qaeda and the Taliban as organizations that do not rightly have a country of origin and that aren’t representing an aggressor nation. As a matter of fact, if one looks at the articles of the Geneva Convention, one will not be able to find any signatories for Al Qaeda or the Taliban anywhere in that particular documentation. Nor will one find representatives for Hezbollah, Hamas or the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Are we to assume that the Geneva Convention never applied to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the first place? Does this mean U.S. soldiers no longer have to read Miranda rights to the filthy scum? Can we now dispense with the formalities of a trial and execute them as enemy combatants, instead of sentencing them to lifelong prison terms, which incidentally would be funded by the American taxpayer?
Something tells me that as long as we have feel-good, politically-correct leftists with a “new world order” mentality in positions of power, ice cream will be served in hell before that will ever happen.
By the way President Obama, consult with your revisionist history friends and get your facts straight:
The Japanese foreign minister and the Japanese military’s chief of staff both signed the official documents of surrender aboard the battleship U.S.S. Missouri on September 2, 1945, not Emperor Hirohito. Consider this your “teachable moment”, courtesy of ACW. However, a stick-on bronze star will be applied to the back of your left hand for getting the MacArthur part right [Reference – 1. Japan surrenders | 2. Formal Surrender of Japan, 2 September 1945].
Congratulations to Premier Obama on the handling of the visit from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Alienating your own citizens is not enough, now you are doing the same thing to one of our closest allies [Articles – 1. No Colgate Moment, Indeed | 2. Barack Obama must grow as a statesman if he is to lead the free world | 3. Obama’s British ‘Gift Gaffe’ Not Reported By U.S. Media]. Is this another on-the-job-training moment? Does Obama need to go to Borders or Barnes and Noble and see if he can find a book like “Diplomacy for Dummies” or a similar self-help book?
How does Obama explain his obvious snubbing of the Mr. Brown? He was ‘too tired’ [Article – Barack Obama ‘too tired’ to give proper welcome to Gordon Brown]. Poor baby. How many other presidents have we had that who were ‘too tired’ to meet with foreign heads of state…but met with them anyway? Premier Obama, one of your own role models, FDR met with heads of state while he was stricken with polio, which was a debilitating disease. He worked right up to the day he died. Which president did not work to the point of exhaustion? Which president did not have days that he didn’t feel well? Which president was not faced with a situation when he was extremely busy? In spite of their circumstances, how many of those presidents still took the time to meet with the average Joe, never mind foreign heads of state and dignitaries? What’s more important to you, your precious “beauty” sleep or the United States of America? So if you receive a phone call at 3:00 in the morning let’s say, what are you going to tell the party on the Read More…