Jan 10 2009

Got More al Qaeda Leaders In Pakistan

Published by at 11:35 am under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT,Pakistan

Fortunately for the US and the World, al Qaeda is only welcomed in isolated portions of the tribal areas of Pakistan (pictured above). Even some of these areas are fighting off the cancer that is Islamo Fascism in an Awakening of their own. I claim this is fortunate because it gives our UAVs a good ‘barrel’ inside which to knock off these terrorists as they become exposed.

We started 2009 with another successful strike at al Qaeda’s leadership, another rotten fish in the Pak tribal barrel has gone to meet Allah:

A New Year’s Day CIA strike in northern Pakistan killed two topal-Qaeda members long sought by the United States, including the man believed to be behind September’s deadly suicide bombing at a Marriott hotel in the Pakistani capital, U.S. counterterrorism officials confirmed yesterday.

Agency officials ascertained this week that Usama al-Kini, a Kenyan national who was described as al-Qaeda’s chief of operations in Pakistan, was killed in the Jan. 1 missile strike, along with his lieutenant, identified as Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, the sources said. Both men were associated with a string of suicide attacks in Pakistan in recent months and also allegedly helped plan the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa.

Clinton did not bring justice to those who attacked our embassies in Africa, but Bush certainly did.

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “Got More al Qaeda Leaders In Pakistan”

  1. kathie says:

    When you keep your eye on the ball you quietly get things done. Or you keep your eye on the New York Times to see if you made the headlines so you can pat yourself on the back and talk about what you’re going to do. I like this guy George W. Bush.

  2. OLDPUPPYMAX says:

    Goerge accomplished three things in 8 years. He sent a bunch of these “religious” thugs to meet their various virgins, cut taxes and…after a hell of a lot of protest, put two constructionists on the Supreme Court. Apart from these, George, you were just about as bright and “conservative” as your father. PLEASE…keep your brother at home, huh!

  3. kathie says:

    Old…….he also took down Saddam, drove bin Laden from Afghanestan, kept this country safe from attack, saved millions of Africans, expanded NATO, reorganized the spy agencies, brought the military into the 21st century and much more. Not bad for 8 years. After all we didn’t elect dictators.

  4. bill says:

    Will it continue? I doubt it …

  5. The Macker says:

    And adding to Kathie:
    • He liberated 50 million people.,
    • He created a privatized SS prescription plan that works.
    • He shut down tax support for abortion and embryonic stem cell abuse.
    • He planted self government in the ME.

    By any measure, these achievements are huge. I believe he and his father are both very “bright,” pragmatic and able to take the long view. Don’t know what your standard for “brightness” and “conservatism” is.

    Jefferson was “brighter” than Washington.
    Clinton was “brighter” than Reagan.
    Washington and Reagan were decision makers with the big picture. I’ll take that in a president.

  6. Terrye says:

    you know something old puppy? I am tired of self professed people like you constantly complaining about who is and is not a conservative. Who put you in charge, who made you the judge? Day after day I hear this cranky pissy whiney people complain about how Bush or McCain or someone is not a true conservative. Well, who gets to decide who is? Who are you?

    Bush has not only had to deal with a biased press and a not so loyal opposition, he has had to deal with a bunch of hardliners on the right who insist on running things even though they can not win a primary in either party. I mean come on, if you want to run things, then win something. That is how it works. Constantly complaining that other people do not kiss your butt does not exactly strengthen your position.

  7. crosspatch says:

    Conservatives are RINOs and admit it. They say that they are “conservatives” first and “Republicans” second. I say they need to either form their own party or just pick a party to align with and stop playing passive-aggressive. Americans are made up of people of all political persuasion and that is actually a good thing. We don’t need anyone shoving social conservatism down our throats than we need anyone doing the same with social liberalism.

    We need a strong defense and a government that is an asset to our economy, not a parasite of it. Think government burden is bad now? Wait till those 1 trillion dollar deficits collide head on with Social Security starting to put out more than it takes in. When the trust fund produces an IOU to congress for payment instead of a check with excess contributions as it generally does, the entire game changes.

  8. The Macker says:

    I understand your philosophy. And I share your desire for a strong national defense and fiscal responsibility.

    But if Republicans abdicate on the “social” issues, the Democrats will “shove their values down our throats.” Politics is about more than taxes and spending. That defines the old “country club Republicans.”

    Social issues include minimum wage laws, immigration laws, marriage definitions, media regulations, tax fairness and protection of human life.