Billions know that President Obama, in December, will assemble all the U. S. business and labor leaders in one place, ostensibly to talk about it all. This is a nation at War, he will not doubt say. The previous one always did! He will doubtless point out that the fellow at Ft. Hood, for example, only shot the ten. Right there in December. . .there will be those who. . . .shot it all, away.
White House Press Speaker Gibbs, cited in the NY Times: "Mr. Obama's 'primary focus is on groups and their allies that can strike our homeland, strike our allies, or groups who would provide safe haven for those that wish to do that."'
No doubt, of course Press Speaker Gibbs was calling attention to France. Other groups do come to mind--even fellows at work on U. S. Military Property. Maybe there are some, even now.
Identify war aims - Scotland on Sunday
The fact is, no one seems to know just what to do, or what in fact what is even being done: With respect to aims and outcomes in Afghanistan. The NATO allies seem to be in the same quandry. The Taliban actually, likely have: Traditional rights of citizenship in the areas where they are now found. The Al Qaeda are guests, by comparison, and they are widely reported to be greatly diminished as a presence. So the business and union leaders are likely to be said to have traditional rights of citizenship in the areas where they are now found.
The NATO allies. in fact, seem to find the government in Afghanistan to be corrupt. The NATO allies, however, have at least come to grips with their business problems. Now is a time for even the President to come to grips with a lot of our problems, and all at once.
If the United States wins in Afghanistan: Even there the question arises. Who is going to be put where, after they have all signed on: So to speak!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(The Colonies do have their history certain. If at first you can force the indigenous tribes onto the Reservations, then why not the Nisei?! And then it's on to the Arabs, and then on to the Persians, and then. . . . .Jihad!"
White House Press Speaker Gibbs, cited in the NY Times: "Mr. Obama's 'primary focus is on groups and their allies that can strike our homeland, strike our allies, or groups who would provide safe haven for those that wish to do that."'
No doubt, of course Press Speaker Gibbs was calling attention to France. Other groups do come to mind--even fellows at work on U. S. Military Property. Maybe there are some, even now.
Identify war aims - Scotland on Sunday
The fact is, no one seems to know just what to do, or what in fact what is even being done: With respect to aims and outcomes in Afghanistan. The NATO allies seem to be in the same quandry. The Taliban actually, likely have: Traditional rights of citizenship in the areas where they are now found. The Al Qaeda are guests, by comparison, and they are widely reported to be greatly diminished as a presence. So the business and union leaders are likely to be said to have traditional rights of citizenship in the areas where they are now found.
The NATO allies. in fact, seem to find the government in Afghanistan to be corrupt. The NATO allies, however, have at least come to grips with their business problems. Now is a time for even the President to come to grips with a lot of our problems, and all at once.
If the United States wins in Afghanistan: Even there the question arises. Who is going to be put where, after they have all signed on: So to speak!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(The Colonies do have their history certain. If at first you can force the indigenous tribes onto the Reservations, then why not the Nisei?! And then it's on to the Arabs, and then on to the Persians, and then. . . . .Jihad!"
Last edited:
