So, BLM, did you hear about the terrorist financier who donated to the GOP?

[beachmom]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/02/accused_terrori.html

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) won't say what it plans to do with thousands of dollars in campaign donations it received from an accused terror financier.

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari gave $15,250 to the NRCC since 2002, according to FEC records published on the Web site opensecrets.org.

On Friday, Alishtari pled not guilty to funding terrorism and other crimes, including financial fraud.




So . . . . any chance this guy is connected with the old bank BCCI? I mean, once the tin foil hat goes on, who knows what this story will lead to . . .

[blm]

1. Not hard to believe - the links between terror-financiers and the BFEE is

probably why Plame and her cover firm was outed, too. Far too many coincidences to believe they are all separate and unconnected issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x252817

[beachmom]

2. While I've got your attention -- answer this question ....

Why did Time magazine have a cover story about how we should be making deals with druglords in Afghanistan -- the ONLY way we can win the war on terror (which means we have to stop fighting drugs)? Did I mention that this guy worked with the Taliban and OBL in the past?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1587252,00.html

[TayTay]

3. We may have no choice on this

The Drug Lords are the powers of order outside of a small sphere of influence around Kabul. Hamid Karzie, Afghanistan's President, does not have a lot of power or a lot of military force under his direct command. If he moves too hard against the Drug Lords, then he loses even more power. He has been forced into enlisting their help because they represent some of the only power in the region.

There are no good choices in the Middle East, only the lesser of downsized evils.

[beachmom]

4. My feeling is that going into Iraq is what has brought us to this

situation in Afghanistan. We took our eye off the ball, and now we're dealing with a full out narco state. And cooperating with drug kingpins today is like how we dealt with the Mujahadeen during the Cold War which led directly to 9/11. It is a big, big mistake which will have long term consequences. What needs to be done is serious nation building in Afghanistan, and creating an alternative economy to the poppy fields -- the soft investments Kerry has talked about. I'm not talking about burning bridges with a piety we can't afford (think de-Baathification), but the goal is to NOT be dependent on druglords who you know are going to play both sides (the Taliban are now okay with selling poppy for their goals). It will also make us look like complete hypocrites and turn off devout Muslims (for which that includes about 100% of the population) who don't want to side with al Qaeda/the Taliban, but if they see us as going along with the drug dealers they will know we're not serious about helping them.



Edited to add: not dealing with the heroin in Afghanistan means a hell of a lot of people dying on the streets of America, including Boston, which is being flooded with cheap, pure heroin from Central Asia. This will kill more Americans than terrorism.

[blm]

5. Exactly - Britain has seen an upswing in drug deaths and addiction, too.

I think much of that aspect of the news has been downplayed.

What's the tradeoff in all of this and is it worth the longterm agony? This is another reason why we need the books opened up so EVERY nation can understand what is happening and how their very lives are being manipulated and jeopardized by official governments.

[TayTay]

6. Yup. 100% correct.

This was avoidable. However, Karzai is a very weak leader who has little firepower to back up his demands. He simply lacks the resources to take on the Drug Lords. The US should never have let it get to this. We now lack the ability to stop this unless we refocus our efforts on Afghanistan. However, this is unlikely to happen.

I agree. More will die. Many, many more will die worldwide. The British were livid that the US didn't do more to wipe out the poppy crop while we had the chance. Now, well, it is, in many ways, too late. Again, we are in the territory of measuring which action we take kills the least amount of people. Which is the least immoral choice that we can make, as they are all immoral choices.

[beachmom]

7. And don't forget the loss of Khalilizad who WAS U.S. ambassador

to Afghanistan, and an Afghan himself. He was sent over to Iraq, when Karzai needed him in Afghanistan. Now Iraq is lost, and Afghanistan is getting to that place, too.

Did I mention to you guys that given a choice between serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no damned difference now? It sucks BIG TIME in Afghanistan, and I have to say our biggest loss of life on one day for folks stationed out of Virginia Beach was in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

[TayTay]

9. This is sadly true. Much to our national shame.

As Sen. Kerry said a month ago in his floor speech, he never thought it would ever get to this point again. It did.

[beachmom]

8. LOL -- good recap plus a picture of Bush in the WH sitting next

to a supporter of . . . the Sunni insurgency!! This is beyond classic.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/20/18711/1394

What's he going to do -- attack himself for aiding and abetting the enemy??