2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate Calls Taliban “Freedom Fighters”

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


130715131237-schweitzer-sotu-story-top

If Elizabeth Warren doesn’t run, progressives may have a new dreamboat 2016 candidate.

In the course of his appearance, Schweitzer–defending President Obama’s deal for the release of US soldier Bowe Bergdahl–declined to call the five senior Taliban members released either terrorists or war criminals.  Even the Daily Beast, in the person of reporter Eli Lake, has called the five “some of the worst of the worst,” and “considered [by the Pentagon] to be a high risk to launch attacks against the United States and its allies if they were liberated.”

BRIAN SCHWEITZER: Let me ask you this question. When these guys, these same five guys were fighting the Russians we called them the freedom fighters. When we invaded Afghanistan to chase Al Qaeda out and we did that in six months, we now call them terrorists. They’re enemy combatants; they are enemy combatants in Afghanistan. That’s who they are.

KRISTOL: The U.N. calls two of them war criminals. They have thousands of deaths on their hands from Afghanistan.

SCHWEITZER: At the end of a war, the U.N. calls many people war criminals. That’s war.

And he would know all about war from his heroic service working on crop irrigation in Saudi Arabia where he learned to speak Arabic.

Schweitzer (D – Stillwater Mining Company) was being touted for president and then for vice president. But Obama went with another fake folksy idiot who could win over a few of the more gullible working class white voters he was screwing.

And now he’s a little desperate to fight Biden for a distant second place. It’s going to be a race based on which of the men can say the dumbest and most offensive things possible to win over Iowa and New Hampshire voters.

I don’t think Biden will lose that race.

And despite Schweitzer’s sudden new views on foreign policy, his mining interests will keep the left from getting too close.

  • Yadja

    Personally I feel that the more exposure these people who are so very short a full load, the better for everyone, especially Independents.

    I am an Independent and I have voted both parties now and again, but I will tell you this much, this election I will most assuredly vote Republican. Hillary and Obama said they were Progressives and they are. Now the Democrats had their chance with more “Crisis” than any president had before them in years and they failed miserably. They continue to fail miserably.

    I believe the Democrats will loose the Independent vote and the military and that is a huge loss for them.

    • JellyJessopiiy

      like my Aunty Allison recently got a nice 6 month old Jaguar by working from a macbook.this
      website C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

    • JackSpratt

      They always lose the military vote, that’s why they dedicate so much effort in disqualifying military ballots.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Very true …

        In fact, the 2012 election might have elected Romney, had the military vote from several states been counted …

  • Ban Liberals

    If this is an example of a Democrap candidate, they already lost.

    • JackSpratt

      Um, he’s certainly no worse than Obozo.

  • truebearing

    “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” or so the false moral equivalency goes. But one man’s terrorist is also another man’s executioner, which is not a false equivalency, but a simple truth. Leftists rely on catchy pseudo-truths that only work in a narrow, one-directional way. Reverse the direction or open the formula to other variables and they fall apart like a cheap toy. Is one man’s freedom fighter necessarliy a terrorist? Obviously not. Yet another way the Left lies.

    Schwietzer is a typical soulless leftist, well-schooled in deceptive tactics but only concerned about power for himself, at any cost.

    • JackSpratt

      Consider that leftists believe George Washington and the colonists were terrorists.

      • truebearing

        Most likely so they can create more false equivalencies with modern day terrorists.

        • SusieBartlettedo

          just before I looked at the receipt ov $8130 , I
          didn’t believe that my sister woz like actualy bringing in money part-time from
          there pretty old laptop. . there aunts neighbour has been doing this 4 only
          about 22 months and at present repayed the mortgage on their appartment and
          bought themselves a Chrysler . see here M­o­n­e­y­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Off-topic, and posted by someone who has little knowledge of spelling or grammar …

      • glpage

        The founding fathers did not knowingly target and/or kill noncombatants. Terrorists do, that’s why they’re called terrorists. So, ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ is a false equivalency. Unless, of course, you believe knowingly killing noncombatants to be a valid action in the pursuit of freedom. Oh wait, I forgot, most leftists believe that for what they call freedom

    • Gee

      The phrase “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” was invented by the KGB during the Cold War to explain the Soviet’s support for terrorist movements around the world.

      • truebearing

        That explains why American leftists like it so much.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Oh he’s for sure on the short list for VP now.

  • herb benty

    Way back. when Russia was in Afghanistan, most of us in the West did not know all the details of Islam. The murder, torture, child brides, female genital mutilation, the absolute hatred of Jews, Christians and the West. And of course the intention of world dominance at any cost. Islamists ANYWHERE are not freedom fighters, Islam hates freedom.

    • JackSpratt

      Exactly, but even to the extent that we did know it, we could never have thought they would attack the U.S. However, by the time Klinton initiated his ‘wag the dog war’ against Serbia, going in on the Islamist side, against the Christians, we knew what Islamofascism was about, and bin Laden was leasding the Islamists there at the time.

      • herb benty

        Totally agree with you on that. When I took out a Koran from our library in the early 2000′s, I saw that Jews and Christians were Islam’s main target slated for death— that, caught my attention.

  • Normando782

    The US supplied the Taliban with equipment to fight the Russian domination of Afghanistan and I do not believe they understood who they were backing. As soon as the Russians departed the Taliban Islamists brought severe Sharia law into practice and began training foreign muslim extremists in terror tactics and go back to their respective nations to carry out terrorist activities which eventually led to NATO coming in to put a stop to their war mongering. Obama has just fortified the Taliban with the release of these 5 top leaders. To think it was an oversight not to inform Congress is absolute bs. He did it deliberately.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The US did not supply the Taliban. It supplied fighters, some of whom ended up identified with the Taliban.

    • Ray

      The Taliban was not formed until 1994.

  • JackSpratt

    Um..they become terrorists when they attack and murder civilians, their own people and people’s from other nations, including Americans. He looks dumber than a board.

  • fizziks

    He’s not calling the Taliban freedom fighters, he’s saying that WE (meaning the US government) called these particular men freedom fighters in the 80s, which we did.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The only freedom in Islam is the freedom for Muslims to become more devout slaves of Allah. Moreover, Muslim females don’t have the freedom of choice to pick and choose their own husbands, as they are sold to men willing to pay the price, and often time to men old enough to be their grandfathers and often time before the they have reached the age of sexual maturity.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”

    That’s the kind of insanity that we run into when we morally equate what is really jihad as somehow being terrorism. Muslims aren’t terrorists fighting for freedom. Instead, they are jihadists, i.e., mujahideen (holy warriors) fighting in the cause of Allah both violently and non-violently to ultimately make Islam supreme via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law.

  • Normando782

    Thanks Ray, you are correct but as Greenfield pointed out the mujahdeen that were supplied wound up being part of the Taliban.