Gold9472
06-23-2005, 09:59 AM
Catch as catch can’t
Is the Bush regime using Osama as an alibi to bully the world?
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main13.asp?filename=Ne070205Catch_as.asp
By Harinder Baweja
The cia Director, Porter Goss, has made a huge, if also alarming, admission. The admission is huge because it involves Osama bin Laden, the man US President George Bush vowed to get ‘dead or alive’ after the 9/11 terrorist strikes. Goss has now said, in an interview to Time magazine that he has an “excellent idea” of where the world’s ‘terrorist No. 1’ is hiding.
As if that’s not startling enough, Goss has gone on to explain why the greatest power on earth can’t lay their hands on a man they invaded Afghanistan over, a man over whom it launched the global war against terror. “When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you’re dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play,” Goss said. Read what he’s saying again. Ponder over the import of a statement coming from none other than the cia’s top man. America’s sense of international obligation and fair play, he says is coming in the way of accessing “sanctuaries in sovereign states.” This revelation begs many a question. Why was Afghanistan pounded one month after 9/11? Why was Iraq invaded? Are these nations not sovereign? Why is the US still occupying Iraq even though it has admitted — even if grudgingly — that it was misled by its intelligence agencies on the existence of weapons of mass destruction? Where was its sense of fair play when it ordered its troops into Iraq without sanction from the United Nations?
What happens to America’s National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, released with much fanfare by President Bush on February 14, 2003. In the new strategy to combat terrorism, Bush assumed far-reaching powers for the US. As President he gave himself the right to protect his country, even if that meant launching pre-emptive strikes in any part of the world. “The United States’ strategy for combating terrorism focuses on taking the fight to the terrorists themselves. We are using all elements of our national power and international influence to attack terror networks; reduce their ability to communicate and coordinate their plans; isolate them from potential allies and from each other; and identify and disrupt their plots before they attack. The war against global terror will be hard and long. We will not rest until we succeed,’’ he has declared.
So why is there a change? Why is America stopping short of getting Osama when they have an excellent idea of where he is? Actually, is there really a change? Less than two weeks ago, the US cautioned — read threatened — India and Pakistan against going ahead with the Iran Gas Pipeline. Its fear: Iran would use oil revenues to fund its nuclear weapons programme. Also, that will loosen the monopoly the US is trying to gain over the oil market.
Several top American officials have repeatedly said that they believe Osama is hiding in the rugged terrain along the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier. Operations have been conducted there in the past. Why, indeed, is the US now citing reasons of fair play? In fact, it would only be fair for them to answer the question and set the record straight. They owe it to all the nations supporting them in their war against terror.
Is the Bush regime using Osama as an alibi to bully the world?
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main13.asp?filename=Ne070205Catch_as.asp
By Harinder Baweja
The cia Director, Porter Goss, has made a huge, if also alarming, admission. The admission is huge because it involves Osama bin Laden, the man US President George Bush vowed to get ‘dead or alive’ after the 9/11 terrorist strikes. Goss has now said, in an interview to Time magazine that he has an “excellent idea” of where the world’s ‘terrorist No. 1’ is hiding.
As if that’s not startling enough, Goss has gone on to explain why the greatest power on earth can’t lay their hands on a man they invaded Afghanistan over, a man over whom it launched the global war against terror. “When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you’re dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play,” Goss said. Read what he’s saying again. Ponder over the import of a statement coming from none other than the cia’s top man. America’s sense of international obligation and fair play, he says is coming in the way of accessing “sanctuaries in sovereign states.” This revelation begs many a question. Why was Afghanistan pounded one month after 9/11? Why was Iraq invaded? Are these nations not sovereign? Why is the US still occupying Iraq even though it has admitted — even if grudgingly — that it was misled by its intelligence agencies on the existence of weapons of mass destruction? Where was its sense of fair play when it ordered its troops into Iraq without sanction from the United Nations?
What happens to America’s National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, released with much fanfare by President Bush on February 14, 2003. In the new strategy to combat terrorism, Bush assumed far-reaching powers for the US. As President he gave himself the right to protect his country, even if that meant launching pre-emptive strikes in any part of the world. “The United States’ strategy for combating terrorism focuses on taking the fight to the terrorists themselves. We are using all elements of our national power and international influence to attack terror networks; reduce their ability to communicate and coordinate their plans; isolate them from potential allies and from each other; and identify and disrupt their plots before they attack. The war against global terror will be hard and long. We will not rest until we succeed,’’ he has declared.
So why is there a change? Why is America stopping short of getting Osama when they have an excellent idea of where he is? Actually, is there really a change? Less than two weeks ago, the US cautioned — read threatened — India and Pakistan against going ahead with the Iran Gas Pipeline. Its fear: Iran would use oil revenues to fund its nuclear weapons programme. Also, that will loosen the monopoly the US is trying to gain over the oil market.
Several top American officials have repeatedly said that they believe Osama is hiding in the rugged terrain along the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier. Operations have been conducted there in the past. Why, indeed, is the US now citing reasons of fair play? In fact, it would only be fair for them to answer the question and set the record straight. They owe it to all the nations supporting them in their war against terror.