| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/8/2009 5:36:59 AM | I've been a fan of Colbert for a long time, and he's gone and done it again.
CAMP VICTORY, Iraq -- Stephen Colbert left no doubt about his solidarity with American troops when he taped the first of four Comedy Central shows he'll produce in Iraq this week.
Colbert, wearing a business suit made of the same camouflaged material used for soldiers' desert uniforms, submitted to a regulation military haircut as hundreds of U.S. troops cheered wildly Sunday.
The comedian, who satirizes conservative TV pundits on his "Colbert Report," began his "Operation Iraqi Stephen: Going Commando" USO tour Sunday in the Baghdad headquarters of the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq.
"It must be nice in Iraq, because some of you keep coming back again and again," Colbert said, joking about the multiple tour many troops have had in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. Some troops had accumulated enough frequent flyer miles to earn them a free ticket to Afghanistan, he joked.
Colbert told his guest, Gen. Ray Odierno, he felt "a little intimidated" by him, not because he was he top U.S. commander in Iraq, but because it felt like he was "interviewing Shrek." Odierno is an imposing bald figure at 6-feet, 5-inches tall.
Odierno said the military is "not yet ready to declare victory" in Iraq and that there was a little more work to be done for long-term stability.
"I, Stephen Colbert, by the power invested in me by basic cable, officially declare we won the Iraq war," Colbert said, as his audience broke out into applause.
The interview was interrupted when President Obama appeared on large television screens. The commander-in-chief told his general it was time to "cut that man's hair."
With white electric hair clippers in his hand, Ordierno stood up and began shaving Colbert's trademark thick dark hair. The troops stood and cheered as a female member of Colbert's staff finished the job.
After the haircut, Colbert ran through the audience, high-fiving the troops as he showed off his new military look.
One Army major said that "shaving of the hair is an amazing show of support" that was "very touching."
Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain also made a pre-taped appearance on the show, jokingly reminding the troops to "take time to clean your muskets."
Lt. Col. Debra Shoemaker, a native of Colbert's hometown of Charleston, South Carolina, said the show was a "nice break" from the monotony of service in Iraq.
USO Senior Vice President John Hanson said the shows are an important diversion for the troops.
Colbert's USO tour is unusual because it's the first time it has been a show taped in a combat zone has been edited and aired so quickly. The Sunday show will be televised on the Comedy Central network .
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/07/colbert.iraq/index.html
Not only does he go over and visit them, he also does it in that inevitable Colbert style - and also allows both Obama and McCain to deliver some killer lines while doing so.
"Take time to clean your muskets......."
Looks like this series of shows will be a must see if one wants or needs a smile. | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/14/2009 9:00:50 AM |
With white electric hair clippers in his hand, Ordierno stood up and began shaving Colbert's trademark thick dark hair. The troops stood and cheered as a female member of Colbert's staff finished the job.
After the haircut, Colbert ran through the audience, high-fiving the troops as he showed off his new military look.
One Army major said that "shaving of the hair is an amazing show of support" that was "very touching." Very cool. IME, making such a long-lasting change to your appearance, as shaving your hair, is something that military people seem to think shows your commitment to the forces. Conversely, having long hair has been seen for a long time, as a form of liberal defiance against submitting to authority. Colbert doing this shows that he's willing to happily adapt his views. Seeing how the troops returned his high-five, shows just how much they could see that he's OK with them, and the only people he's against are politicians using the troops to start wars that win elections.

Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain also made a pre-taped appearance on the show, jokingly reminding the troops to "take time to clean your muskets." McCain is obviously older than I thought. IMHO, a LOT older than EVERYONE thought.
 | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/14/2009 2:52:11 PM | My son and I stayed up every night that week just to watch,.... we catch the show, which follows the daily show (another one of our favorite) here at midnight,... | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/14/2009 5:05:01 PM | It is very good to support the troops and to keep their moral up. After all, they do not make policy or have a choice of where they are sent once they sign on the dotted line.
However, we must ask the question: why are they there, now that we now know the Taliban had nothing to do with the events of 911? | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/14/2009 5:21:03 PM |
However, we must ask the question: why are they there, now that we now know the Taliban had nothing to do with the events of 911? We do? Not that I'm disagreeing, as I always thought 9/11 was a bit fishy. But isn't 9/11 because of Bin Laden, and wasn't Bin Laden the leader of the Taliban? | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/14/2009 7:36:40 PM | Bin Laden was one of the mujahadeen brought in to destroy the Taraki governemt and drive off the Soviets. While bushco accused him of the attack in newyork he has never been charged with that offense because of lack of evidence. The accusation is seen by many as only a pretext to attack Afghanistan since the plans were made five weekd beforre the events of 911.
Mullah Omar is the leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/14/2009 8:45:38 PM | | From what rare interviews have been held with OBL one thing both he and the US agree on is that he was not a puppet of the US as he hated them even then. As well, he is wanted for the Embassy bombings and was in fact charged. As for 911, we do know that as head of Al Qaeda, he was responsible for that attack. I would imagine that the US has their reasons for not charging him with that crime and possibly has to do with not giving him any rights as a criminal rather than a terrorist which might inhibit any actions taken against him. We also know that as a criminal responsible for the Embassy Attacks the Taliban refusedto turn him over and subsequently were subject to being classified as harboring a known terrorist and, attacked themselves. | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/14/2009 11:02:16 PM | he is wanted for the Embassy bombings and was in fact charged. As for 911, we do know that as head of Al Qaeda, he was responsible for that attack.
what ever happened to inocent until proven guilty in a court of law? just wondering,....
and because I was currious about the actual arrest warrant issued against Usama Bin Laden,....I decided to look it up,....
Offences Categories of Offences: CRIMES AGAINST LIFE AND HEALTH, CRIMES INVOLVING THE USE OF WEAPONS/EXPLOSIVES, TERRORISM, TERRORISM CONSPIRACY Arrest Warrant Issued by: MADRID (COURT NR 5) / Spain, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK / United States, TRIPOLI / Libya
UN information indicates that: 'Saudi citizenship withdrawn, now officially an Afghan national'. Other POB: Yemen.
UN Sanctions Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1267 (1999) and successor resolutions, including resolution 1822 (2008), the Subject is under the following UN Sanctions: Freezing of Assets, Travel Ban and Arms Embargo. The Subject has the following permanent reference number on the list maintained by the UN Security Council Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee (1267 Committee) which appears in the Special Notice for this subject: QI.B.8.01. WANTED by Interpol IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION CONTACT YOUR NATIONAL OR LOCAL POLICE ICPO-INTERPOL General Secretariat, (Command & Coordination Center, Tel: +33 472 44 76 76 - Email : ccc@interpol.int http://www.interpol.int/Public/Data/Wanted/Notices/Data/1998/32/1998_20232.asp
I wonder whose warrant takes priority/ or is it a matter of who catches him first?,.... | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/14/2009 11:57:42 PM | Marita
what ever happened to inocent until proven guilty in a court of law? just wondering,....
Wonder no more. It is an arrest warrant. When arrested, he can have his day in court, possibly even apply for bail. Of course, as head of a terrorist organization, he may wish to attempt to avoid being arrested by putting up a fight against the military, in such a scenario, he may die well before being apprehended. | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/17/2009 7:40:14 AM | RE Msg: 6 by whiskeypapa:
Bin Laden was one of the mujahadeen brought in to destroy the Taraki governemt and drive off the Soviets. While bushco accused him of the attack in newyork he has never been charged with that offense because of lack of evidence. So, Bin Laden hasn't been proved to attack the USA, AND the Taliban hasn't been proved to attack the USA, only American soldiers who invaded Afghanistan? Sounds like another Iraq to me. Damn. Here I thought there was an least ONE place that the US and UK entered that had SOME level of justification.
It's a wonder that any Muslims trust the West. With that track record, who would?
RE Msg: 7 by Fandango!:
As well, he is wanted for the Embassy bombings and was in fact charged. As for 911, we do know that as head of Al Qaeda, he was responsible for that attack. I would imagine that the US has their reasons for not charging him with that crime and possibly has to do with not giving him any rights as a criminal rather than a terrorist which might inhibit any actions taken against him. I gather that the public believe that the war on Afghanistan, was solely to find Bin Laden, for 9/11, because he is widely blamed not just as the head of Al Quaeda, but as the person who arranged and set up the whole of 9/11, and that without him, it would never have happened. AFAIK about how the public view things, without that, there was no argument to enter Afghanistan whatsoever.
We also know that as a criminal responsible for the Embassy Attacks the Taliban refusedto turn him over and subsequently were subject to being classified as harboring a known terrorist and, attacked themselves. Last year, a Mosque in Iran was the subject of a terrorist attack. The perpetrators are known to Interpol, who have identified some of them passing through the UK and possibly the US, and after that, the trail seems to have gone cold. It is the belief of those Iranians assigned to tracking them down, that the UK and the US are harbouring those terrorists. If it is reasonable for Americans to consider the members of the Taliban as terrorists just because they have some knowledge of Bin Laden's whereabouts and haven't given that information over, then I can see no reason why the Iranian government should not consider the members of the American government and the members of the British government as terrorists, because both governments employ agencies to keep track of who is moving in and out of their countries, such as the Immigration service, the Coastguard, Passport control, and the Department of Homeland Security, who would know where these people are, or where they have gone, and if they are still in America or Britain, which would mean that America and Britain are harbouring known terrorists in their own countries. Either way, the same accusation would apply. What's fair is fair. You cannot call the Taliban terrorists when the same would apply to our governments, without calling our governments terrorist organisations. | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/17/2009 4:38:02 PM | Actually Bin Laden never was the head of Al-Quida, the CIA was. Al-Quida simply was the list of Mujahadeen operatives employed by the CIA, Bin Laden was only one of around five to six hundred. Most were killed by the US and Iran when the US invaded Afghanistan. (the CIA does not have a good retirement package for defunct operatives)
What makes the Taliban terrorists? They were the dejure rulers of Afghanistan having seized power and forming a government during a period of anarchy, something legal under The Law of Nations. They never attacked any foreign countries and, in fact, the US dealt with them on a government to government basis. It was only when they held out for better terms for the trans-Afghanistan pipeline that the US decided to attack them.
The Egyptian newspaper, Al-Whafid, reported that Bin Laden died of pulmonary complications bought on by kidney failure in December of 2001 and is buried in an unmarked grave in ToraBora. | |
|
| |
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/21/2009 11:59:48 PM | Considering the position of the Bidladen Group in Saudi Arabia as one of, (if not thee) largest construction company in the kingdom coupled with the near (and very dear) relationship between the monarchy and the U.S., the intricate ties with the Bushes, The Carlyle Group and several others. Add to that the history behind why oil is traded worldwide in U.S. dollars and you soon see that Osama will never be captured...dead or alive...it's not in either countries best interests...scratch that...it's not in either countries power controllers best interests.
I think the main reason for attacking Iraq was to show Saddam Hussein (and the rest of the world) this is what happens when you attempt to trade oil in any currency other than USD.
Kudos to Mr. Colbert...he supports the troops but not the policies that got them there.
UN information indicates that: 'Saudi citizenship withdrawn, now officially an Afghan national'.
Blood is thicker than water...or citizenship...or oil! | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/22/2009 6:18:11 AM |
UN information indicates that: 'Saudi citizenship withdrawn, now officially an Afghan national'. How is this even possible? Even if the Saudis did withdraw citizenship, he's STILL not an Afghan national, until he goes for the citizenship process in Afghanistan, and gets the relevant naturalisation papers making him a citizen, from the official government of Afghanistan. At best, he's a man without a country.
Anyway, it's not like the US government has withdrawn citizenship from all American serial killers. So why is it necessary?
I think this is just a political move to stop the Saudis being associated with him, so the US doesn't declare war on Saudi Arabia, and take that over as well. After all, they only renounced his citizenship in 1994, a year or two after the Allies invaded Iraq the first time.
But this does raise a question: Bin Laden was a Saudi. All of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis. Not a one was an Afghan. Are we starting to build a picture about who really was behind 9/11?
But then, the Saudis are our "friends". Our "friends" wouldn't bomb us, would they?
Blood is thicker than water...or citizenship...or oil! So is having terrorist groups that send the price of oil shooting up to $150 a barrel. | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/22/2009 10:32:24 AM |
But this does raise a question: Bin Laden was a Saudi. All of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis. Not a one was an Afghan. Are we starting to build a picture about who really was behind 9/11?
That is fairly obvious. Just look at a couple of not generally well known events, connected to Abu Zubaydah and his capture.
His pocket litter contained two bank cards which showed he had access to Saudi and Kuwaiti bank accounts, which was considered rare since most al-Qaeda members used the preferred untraceable hawala banking.
According to James Risen
"It is not clear whether an investigation of the cards simply fell through the cracks, or whether they were ignored because no one wanted to know the answers about connections between al Qaeda and important figures in the Middle East -- particularly in Saudi Arabia." One of Risen's sources chalks up the failure to investigate the cards to incompetence rather than foul play: "The cards were sent back to Washington and were never fully exploited. I think nobody ever looked at them because of incompetence." When American investigators finally did get around to looking into the cards, they worked with "a Muslim financier with a questionable past, and with connections to the Afghan Taliban, al Qaeda, and Saudi intelligence." He reported back that "Saudi intelligence officials had seized all of the records related to the card from the Saudi financial institution in question; the records then disappeared. There was no longer any way to trace the money that had gone into the account."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah
Or this :
Author Gerald Posner, controversial for his books dismissing JFK assassination and other conspiracy theories, will claim that a remarkable interrogation of al-Qaeda prisoner Abu Zubaida begins at this time. Zubaida, arrested three days earlier (see March 28, 2002), is flown to a US Special Forces compound outside of Kandahar, Afghanistan. There, he is tricked into thinking the US has handed him to the Saudis for a more brutal interrogation, but in fact “the Saudis” are still American agents. Zubaida expresses great relief at this and, under the influence of the “truth serum” sodium pentothal, tells his interrogators to call Prince Ahmed bin Salman, a nephew of the Saudi king. He provides telephone numbers from memory and says, “He will tell you what to do.”
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=fahd_bin_turki_bin_saud_al-kabir
See also Omar al-Bayoumi, a very interesting Saudi national who just happened to be living at the Parkwood Apartments, along with some of the 9/11 hijackers.
On January 15, 2000, future 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar flew to Los Angeles, California from Bangkok, Thailand, just after attending the 2000 Al Qaeda Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The final 9/11 Commission Report noted:
Hazmi and Mihdhar were ill-prepared for a mission in the United States. . . Neither had spent any substantial time in the West, and neither spoke much, if any, English. It would therefore be plausible that they or [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] would have tried to identify, in advance, a friendly contact for them in the United States. . . We believe it unlikely that Hazmi and Mihdhar. . . would have come to the United States without arranging to receive assistance from one or more individuals informed in advance of their arrival."
Al-Bayoumi met the hijackers at a restaurant after their landing; he claims he met them by accident. He invited the two hijackers to move to San Diego with him, and they did. Al-Bayoumi found them an apartment, co-signed the lease, and gave them $1500 to help pay for their rent. Al-Bayoumi also helped the two obtain driver's licenses, rides to Social Security, and information on flight schools. Al-Bayoumi says he was being kind to fellow Muslims in need, and had no idea of their plans. But according to Newsweek magazine a former top FBI official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "We firmly believed that he had knowledge [of the 9/11 plot], and that his meeting with them that day was more than coincidence."
Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdar's neighbors later reported that the two struck them as quite odd. They had no furniture, they constantly played flight simulator games, and limousines picked them up for short rides in the middle of the night.[8] [9] During this time, al-Bayoumi lived across the street from them. Throughout this period, the payments from Dallah Avco, his titular employer, greatly increased. Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdar later moved into the house of Abdussattar Shaikh, a friend of al-Bayoumi's, who was secretly working as an FBI informant at the time.
In July 2001, Omar al-Bayoumi moved to England to pursue a PhD at Aston University. Ten days after the September 11 attacks he was arrested by British authorities working with the FBI. He was held on an immigration charge while the FBI and Scotland Yard investigate him. His phone calls, bank accounts, and associations were researched, but the FBI says they found no connections to terrorism. He was released, and went back to studying at Aston,and later moved to Saudi Arabia. Anonymous British officials suggest al-Bayoumi must have been protected by the FBI, because "giving financial aid to terrorists is a very serious offense and there is no way [the FBI] would have let him go scot-free."
The issue was reopened when the potential links between al-Bayoumi and the Saudi Embassy were reported in the press. Under pressure from Congress, the FBI re-examined the case. They concluded that the allegations were "without merit," and they "abandoned further investigation." But contemporary news accounts reported that "countless intelligence leads that might help solve [the case] appear to have been under investigated or completely overlooked by the FBI."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_al-Bayoumi
As I also posted a long time ago, it seems that the Saudis also have nuclear weapons and missiles. They didn't spend a billion dollars for an "Islamic bomb" in Pakistan, simply out of good will. They have also bought quite a few CSS-2 "East Wind" Chinese missiles, and they have two missile bases that you can easily find on Google Earth.
Oh yeah, those missiles ?
They have a 2.5 km CEP ( accuracy) , and are useless if using anything other than a nuclear weapon - and that's why the Chinese designed that rocket as a nuclear warhead carrying one.
But shhhh....don't tell anyone, OK ? (Even though it's all out there to find if you look for it....) | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/22/2009 4:16:20 PM |
That is fairly obvious. Just look at a couple of not generally well known events, connected to Abu Zubaydah and his capture. OK. I'll buy all that. But I'm still left with some obvious questions:
1) What would the Saudis have to gain from attacking America? What would they really gain from America going to war? A massive rise in oil prices?
2) How on Earth could the Saudis expect to attack America, and America not attack them? I find that patently ridiculous. Unless, they already discussed the situation with the State Department, and they reassured the Saudis, that if they attacked America, that America would blame the Taliban, and NOT them? But that would mean that the State Department KNEW that 9/11 was going to happen, and they were going to let it happen, yes? Why would the American government be willing to let 9/11 happen? Was it all contrived to give the American people a reason to attack the Taliban?
As I also posted a long time ago, it seems that the Saudis also have nuclear weapons and missiles. OK. Then why aren't the Israelis afraid of the Saudi nuclear weapons? They're afraid of Syrian weapons. They're afraid of Iraqi weapons. They're afraid of Iranian weapons. Why not the Saudis?
Is it because the Syrians, Iraqis and the Iranians aren't friends of America, and the Saudis are friends of America? Doesn't that mean that Israel is just really a stooge for American political ambitions? | |
|
| Stephen Colbert and the troops Posted: 6/22/2009 4:48:10 PM | Although far from topic, some good questions.
1) America is, and will always be, the "Great Satan" to the hardcore Saudis (almost an oxymoron). Of all the Sunni Muslims, they are about as hardcore as one can possibly get. American support for Israel, as well as the American lifestyle, make it an oil and water type of situation.
On the other hand, business is still business, and the Saudis also gain from American politicians ( look into the Bush family and it's connections to various Saudis.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html
The Saudi ambassador , for decades, was one of the few that could make ONE phone call to the White House and get an instant meeting.
BAER: I'd always been fascinated by Saudi Arabia. And I'd always noticed that on general intelligence reports that are sent around in the field, and in Washington, there's virtually nothing said about Saudi Arabia. Every Arab that I talked to , and I know a lot of them , kept on talking about the disputes in the royal family, huge contracts, the Wahhabi's funding Lebanese politics. It became clear to me, even though I wasn't seeing much in the CIA traffic, or State Department, or anywhere else, that this was a key country.
So when I got back to Washington in 95 and I stayed there until I resigned from the CIA , I said, all right, I don't know a whole lot about Saudi Arabia. What about Saudi Arabia? And I got onto the computer and I took a look around, and there just wasn't anything useful. I mean, you, as a journalist, would have looked at this and said: It�s junk. There�s nothing here. And especially nothing that goes deep into the problems in Saudi Arabia.
BAER: There's a lot that we really don't know. There are a lot of people in the royal family that sympathize with bin Laden. There are people in the royal family that feel humiliated by colonialism -- call it what you want -- by the United States, by Israel. And they're humiliated that they are citizens or subjects of a country that has never fought a war, and yet spends so much money on defense. They're humiliated that they don't take the Israelis on, because their army is worthless. And maybe they're not humiliated but rather disenfranchised because they can never advance up the ranks of the family, and it's a very tough culture. They sit around and they read the Koran. And they get on these Islamic websites, and they watch Al-Jazeera. And they go to the mosque, and I think they're believers.
BAER: I could have sat down and done a list of all my former colleagues from the CIA who ended up on the Saudi Arabian payroll. Some of them are known, like Ray Close. Others have gone public, but there are others that haven't. A bunch of my colleagues went to work for a public consulting firm where the initial capital was paid for by the Saudi embassy to lobby the Hill for the Gulf countries. A former member of the National Security Council under Reagan set this up. And it's not like it's a secret. Even Bandar [Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi prince and U.S. ambassador] has said, according to the Washington Post, that if I take care of people coming out of office, the new ones coming in are going to be a lot friendlier to Saudi Arabia once it gets known.
- Robert Baer, Former CIA Case Officer and Author of "Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude." http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/09/12_baer.html
So funding and allowing such an attack isn't that far fetched. One can keep the support of the radicals (and avoid being their target) simply by going through the motions of covertly supplying them money. If you ARE a radical, then that's OK too. Don't forget the Saudis would much prefer Bin Laden find other targets....and made a deal with him to avoid becoming one themselves.
His initial goal was to topple the Saudi government, remember. It's that "keep your enemies" closer concept in action.
With the influence the Saudis have, any retaliation was almost a non-issue. You can see that over and over again whenever something starts pointing towards Saudi Arabia....it leads to a dead end.
As to why no fear of Saudi nuclear weapons, my guess is an obvious one. Those missiles and nukes were paid for to simply ensure that no one was going to nuke THEM - as a deterrent. In fact, my guess would be that many (if not most) of them are targeting Iran.
There's no way that the Saudis could use them as a first strike weapon, as any nation state realizes, without being destroyed by Israel and it's allies within minutes afterwards. | |
|
|