al-Qaeda

Republicans like claiming they are tough on terrorism, but the evidence shows they are weak when it comes to combating terrorism. Osama bin Laden is still free as a bird and al-Qaeda stronger than ever. Terrorism has grown throughout the world while Bush remains friendly with Saudi Arabia, one of the nations that helps fund and train terrorists.

But some Republicans go further than this it seems. One Republican in particular has been indicted for actually helping al-Qaeda...which strikes me as outright treason.

From Truthout:

A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

A 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying - money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

I keep writing about the neglected fronts in the fight against al-Qaeda and showing how fundamentalist Sunni Islam is rising worldwide while Bush mires us deeper and deeper into the war in Iraq, a war that had nothing to do with the people who attacked America on 9/11.

Somalia has been part of the war on al-Qaeda for many years now. And yet Republicans seem hell-bent on ignoring it. When Clinton had stabilized 90% of Somalia, with the (sometimes reluctant) cooperation of most of the Somali leaders, Republicans complained that his intervention (initiated by the elected George Bush) had no strategic purpose and no exit strategy. Odd that they said that about a nation that went on to become a focal point of al-Qaeda activity and which is now poised to become a regional disaster, yet they don't say the same thing about Bush's Iraq quagmire which also has no obvious strategic purpose, except to distract from the war against al-Qaeda, and has no exit strategy. Clinton recognized the situation in Somalia as one where religious fundamentalism and political chaos would prevail if we did not act to stabilize the are. Yet, Republicans blocked his efforts, forcing a withdrawal and subsequently political chaos resulted, leaving it to al-Qaeda linked, Taliban-like fundamentalists to provide a measure of stability. The jist of a BBC Radio show I participated in was just that: Somalis welcomed the US intervention, hoping it would bring stability, felt betrayed when the US left suddenly, then, after years of civil war, welcomed the fundamentalists as providing some safety and stability. In effect, Republican neglect of the region, along with neglect of Afghanistan, Pakistan and a whole slew of nations, was allowing what I call a nascent fundamentalist Sunni Caliphate to get going, creating fundamentalist, often al-Qaeda linked groups to form all over the world.

So, the depth of Bush's failure in containing terrorism gets worse. I have been reporting how on every front Islamic fundamentalists, often linked to al-Qaeda, are expanding and thriving while Bush diddles in Iraq.

We were attacked by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Bush's first actions were taken against al-Qaeda, primarily in Afghanistan. This was reasonable. Everyone, even Lybia, agreed we were justified.

Then Bush left the war against al-Qaeda unfinished and invaded Iraq. Why? We know the WMD excuse was a bald faced lie. We also know, as many of us knew at the time, that there never was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and, in fact, Hussein, as a secular leader, was keeping fundamentalism at bay in Iraq. Doesn't change the fact that he was a violent dictator, but when it comes to fighting al-Qaeda, the people who attacked us, invading Iraq was counter productive. And I said so at the time.

Now Iraq is opened up to al-Qaeda thanks to the fact we removed the secular power...and put nothing effective in return. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise in a place it never had been before.

As I have been covering almost constantly, Islamic fundamentalism, often linked to al-Qaeda, is on the rise throughout the Muslim world. I have discussed its rise in Pakistan and Afghanistan thanks to Bush's failure to finish the job there before invading Iraq. I have discussed the victory of what I call the Somali Taliban. Somalia is now a battle ground with warlords fighting Islamists with Ethiopia intervening, which has threatened to bring Eritrea into the fray on the side of the Islamists. The Somali civil war is something Bush did nothing to prevent and it threatens to create a regional war with al-Qaeda linked Islamists gaining ground. I have covered the rise to power of fundamentalists in Bahrain, formerly a bastion of moderate Islam. In Bangladesh, foremerly one of the more democratic Muslim states, corruption and the rise of a previously absent fundamentalist terrorist group has led to the military to take control and declare democracy a failed experiment. So Bangladesh, like Pakistan and now Iraq, becomes yet another battle ground between military strongmen and fundamentalist Islam with democracy the loser. And just yesterday I discussed a wave of bombings in Morocco, usually a fairly quiet Middle Eastern nation.

How many years has it been since we invaded Afghanistan? And what have we accomplished? The latest news indicates we accomplished little. The Taliban still exist and the war in Afghanistan is once again threatening to pour over into neighboring nations. From Salon.com:

Asserting a right to self-defense, American forces in eastern Afghanistan have launched artillery rounds into Pakistan to strike Taliban fighters who attack remote U.S. outposts, the commander of U.S. forces in the region said Sunday.

The skirmishes are politically sensitive because Pakistan's government, regarded by the Bush administration as an important ally against Islamic extremists, has denied that it allows U.S. forces to strike inside its territory.

The use of the largely ungoverned Waziristan area of Pakistan as a haven for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters has become a greater irritant between Washington and Islamabad since Pakistan put in place a peace agreement there in September that was intended to stop cross-border incursions.

Army Col. John W. Nicholson, commander of the 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, said in an Associated Press interview that rather than halt such incursions, the peace deal has led to a substantial increase.

Pakistani border forces, which had been active in stopping Taliban incursions into Afghanistan as recently as last spring, stopped offensive actions against them once the peace deal took effect, he said.