Obama Lied, Americans in Afghanistan Died

obamaAfter presiding for six years over a war in which over 1,600 Americans were killed fighting the Taliban, Obama did not mention the enemy during his West Point Commencement Address.

That wasn’t unusual. Obama has a curious habit of avoiding the “T-word” in his official speeches. Even when delivering his Rose Garden speech about Bergdahl’s return, the Taliban were never mentioned.

Obama’s mentions of the Taliban vary by context. When speaking to the military he might say that the United States is at war with the Taliban. In international diplomatic settings however he emphasizes that the conflict is really a civil war between the Taliban and the Afghan government with the United States there to act as a stabilizing force.

The President of Afghanistan claimed that Obama had told him, “The Taliban are not our enemies and we don’t want to fight them.”

Joe Biden had expressed similar thoughts, stating, “The Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical.” White House spokesman Jay Carney awkwardly defended Biden by arguing that the United States was fighting the Taliban, but was there to defeat Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda in Afghanistan however had already been defeated by Bush.

During the campaign and once in office, Obama had proposed outreach to the “moderate” Taliban. Biden estimated that only 5% of the Taliban were incorrigible while 70% and then another 25% could be reasoned with.

According to Biden, these Taliban were expected to end all ties with Al Qaeda, accept the Afghan constitution and offer equal treatment to women. Obama issued the same demand last year. The Taliban who hold strict religious beliefs about the evils of democracy and the inferiority of women did not rush to take Obama and Biden up on their offer.

Obama’s dual views of the Taliban made for an incompatible policy. When playing the role of commander, he delivers applause lines about “pushing the Taliban back” and large numbers of American soldiers were sent to Afghanistan. But the rest of the time he views the Taliban not as an enemy, but like Boko Haram or Hamas, as a group that is acting violently only because their legitimate political needs are not being met.

Some might say that it was as a commander that Obama sent Bowe Bergdahl to Afghanistan, but that it was as an appeaser that he brought him back. And yet both Obamas are the same man. Obama sent Bowe Bergdahl to Afghanistan for the same reason that he brought him back.

This is the discontinuity that bedevils modern liberal foreign policy which fights wars it does not believe in, rejecting war, while still attempting to use force as an instrument of diplomacy.

When Bush sent American soldiers off to war it was because he believed that there was a real enemy to fight. Obama, as we have seen, never believed that the Taliban were our enemy and his own intelligence people had told him that Al Qaeda only had a handful of fighters in Afghanistan.

Then why did he send thousands of American soldiers to die or be maimed fighting the Taliban?

The Afghan Surge had never been meant to defeat the Taliban. The American soldiers were there for political leverage while Hillary and Obama figured out how to seduce the Taliban into political participation. The military would batter away at the incorrigible 5% of the Taliban while a deal would be cut with the other 95%.

But the numbers didn’t hold up.

Obama had claimed that withdrawing from Iraq would force the Iraqis to work out their differences. It didn’t work in Iraq. By putting clear deadlines on the US presence in Afghanistan he hoped to pressure the Afghan government into becoming desperate enough to cut a deal with the Taliban. Instead he only made the Taliban aware that they had no reason to cut a deal because they could wait him out.

Like many peace initiatives with terrorists, the pressure used to convince another government to negotiate with the terrorists only succeeded in convincing the terrorists not to negotiate. Obama was recreating the Israeli-PLO Peace Process disaster, except that he was doing it using American, instead of Israeli, lives.

Obama and Hillary’s talk of an Afghan-led approach to reconciling with the Taliban completed the breach between the Afghan government and the US. By trying to play the middle man in a deal that no one wanted, Obama alienated the rest of the country. The US no longer had allies in Afghanistan. It only had enemies. The Green-on-Blue attacks increased dramatically. Even the people we were fighting alongside now saw Americans as the enemy.

Not only had Obama failed to turn the Taliban into friends, but he had turned friends into enemies.

Despite all the setbacks, Obama’s people continued to cling to the idea that trading Bowe Bergdahl for top Taliban commanders would open up the peace process. The idea was floated in 2011 and 2012 and set aside because of Republican opposition. Proponents of Taliban appeasement blamed the GOP for sabotaging the Qatar talks. They even suggested that Republicans wanted the war to drag on to damage Obama’s popularity rating.

Now that Obama has firmly embraced unilateral governance at home, the deal went through. He is determined to shut down the War on Terror, close Gitmo and end the War in Afghanistan before his term ends, but his policies have put the initiative into the hands of a rising network of Islamist groups, some openly associated with Al Qaeda, others more loosely aligned with its ideas.

Meanwhile the American people have been lied to about the war and the Bergdahl deal threatens to unravel some of those lies. Obama did not recommit to Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaeda, as he has claimed, but to engage the Taliban. The Bergdahl deal was a last ditch effort to revive a Taliban peace process that Obama believes will finally disprove the Bush approach to terrorism.

When Obama authorized the Bin Laden operation, he did so to arrest him and put him through a civilian trial in order to dismantle Gitmo. This perverse duality characterizes his entire approach to the War on Terror. A military tactic is joined to an anti-war aim. Force is used to prove that violence doesn’t work nearly as well as diplomacy and appeasement.

This is the disastrous policy that led to everything from the Bergdahl deal to the collapse of the US effort in Afghanistan.

Obama has spent far more time thinking how to win over the Taliban than how to beat them. It’s no wonder that the Taliban have beaten him instead.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Judahlevi

    I agree with the duality of Obama’s thinking about Afghanistan, but even if he was single-minded about Afghanistan, he would never win or even make correct decisions about that war. It is a travesty to put a community organizer from the streets of Chicago into the position of Commander-in-Chief and expect anything good to come from it.

    Most presidents with no military training or experience would realize that they should defer strategy decisions to the military. Obama, in his narcissism, actually believes he makes better decisions than anyone else. From Bergdahl to his incompetent relationship with Karzai, he has been a disaster.

    As soon as he was elected president in the first term our troops should have come home. No one wants to be the last service member to die in Afghanistan because of this CIC’s decisions.

    • Gasserino

      Sage advice, that was why it was so disappointing when Obama started two wars in the early 2000′s, ruined the careers of generals who dissented and allowed a cabal of draft dodging civilians to continuously botch both them for almost a decade.

      Now the mainstream liberal media will tell you that Bush Jr. did all of those things but we all know better. Obama used his Muslim prayer powered time machine to make the previous administration look incompetent.

      That dastardly villain!

      • Judahlevi

        In their own minds, some people think they are witty…

        First, I would take George W Bush as president any day over Barack Obama.

        Second, Bush had military experience – Obama does not.

        Third, Bush had executive experience running one of the largest states in the union – Obama did not.

        The one thing that most Democrats and leftists think gave Obama an advantage over more experienced individuals – his skin color was darker than Bush’s. Not a factor for my vote.

        • Gasserino

          How well did his military experience keeping the Texas skies free of Viet Kong aircraft serve Bush Jr. during the two botched wars he was in charge of? How does that excuse allowing a civilian Secretary of Defense to send troops overseas without proper body armor while well connected military contractors robbed the pentagon blind, all while keeping the cost of the war “off the books” with budgetary parlor tricks.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Bush defeated Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda in Iraq actually was on the run under him thanks to the Sunni Awakening.

            Under Obama it’s taken over entire Iraqi cities.

          • Gasserino

            I’m guessing you’re claiming that the insurgency in Iraq and Taliban resistance were both over when Bush left office, only to be reignited the instant that Obama bowed too low to the Japanese emperor.

            If you don’t like your history, you can revise it!

          • reader

            Were you ever taught to read out loud what you write? Try that. And if it doesn’t sound to you like nonsense, I could guess the upper limit of your IQ pretty closely. It’s about that of Kerry, the C student.

          • truebearing

            “If you don’t like your history, you can revise it!”

            Yes, and you do it very well.

            Al Queda was defeated in Iraq. They had to have been because Obama has been saying they are defeated for years and he didn’t do a damn thing to defeat them. In fact, he pulled out of Iraq, leaving behind no SOF agreement, so surely he must have thought they were defeated in Iraq, or why would he be so cocky and irresponsible?

            Obama has told us Al Queda was defeated in Afghanistan, but then we already knew that. He also said the Taliban isn’t our enemy, yet kept our demoralized troops fighting them, abeit with blindfolds on, no air cover, and using rubber bullets.

            Obama disregarded the advice of his generals on the troop surge,and dithered for months before making a watered down decision. Then he neutered the surge by announcing when he’d pull out. He could have won the war he said was the good war, but he didn’t want to, so he handicapped out soldiers with insane rules of engagement, banned air cover, and undermined the effort diplomatically. Revise that, Gasbag.

          • Gasserino

            How many Al Queda fighters were in Iraq before we invaded? Here’s a hint it’s between 1 & -1. And do the American soldiers who died late in Bush’s term not count because the insurgents who killed them didn’t identify themselves as Al Queda. The Bush administration had 7 years to destroy the Taliban and they failed miserably. Most of the timelines for troop withdrawal were set before Obama took the oath of office. To say that either war was winnable in the sense of destroying their respective insurgencies in 2009 is disingenuous at best & an outright lie at worst. The American people knew we were lied to in Iraq and wanted out of both wars desperately. Both countries are going to continue to be violent places to live as we have proven that conquering a nation and rebuilding it are very different things.

            Perhaps the only good to come out of this is that perhaps the next time some chicken-hawk with friends in the military industrial complex wraps him or herself in the American flag and tells us a war will be easy we won’t be so eager to believe them.

            Also, you even failed in making fun of my username as Gasshole, not Gasbag, is the obvious choice.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Hussein, the other one, was one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terror.

            Bush wasn’t trying to destroy the Taliban. That’s not feasible without either wiping out entire clans and areas or a massive occupation on an unthinkable scale.

            He was moving on to the next fight.

          • Americana

            Daniel, just how long do you think any sect’s Awakening is going to hold up once the other side pulls itself together and prepares for their Awakening? Al Qaeda is a malleable beast and it can absorb any nation’s Muslims even the disenchanted Iraqi Muslims. The fact it can be instantly revived by an injection of new jihadists doesn’t mean that any President’s regional and Afghan achievements can’t be put right back on the bench at a moment’s notice.

          • Americana

            Absolutely, Gasserino. The lack of body armor was perhaps the single most egregious failure of judgment in that war closely followed or preceded by the lack of armoring in the Humvees. (I can’t decide which was the worse tactical choice, in reality I guess they should be considered one and the same.) When the truth came out about the cost, it was staggering what the Halliburton etc. folks had gotten away with doing, including hiring unlicensed locals for jobs like wiring showers for hot water such that American soldiers died by being electrocuted in the showers on their bases.

          • reader

            oh, another huffpo troll with a cache of meaningless cliches popped up to soil the thread.

          • Americana

            reader, that’s a cache of meaningless cliches? Tough crowd!!! I would have called those ‘FACTS’ but you may be a hard sell on ‘FACTS.’ You must not know any of the guys who got blasted into shredded beet pulp in those unarmored Humvees who were left w/brain damage and other injuries. I’ve helped train service dogs for some of them.

            If you don’t consider that it was unconscionable to not recognize that it wasn’t safe for troops to be there without body armor and armored Humvees within a few months after the ‘victory,’ I’m not sure what to say. If you don’t consider that what Halliburton did in Iraq unconscionable, that’s between you and your conscience.

          • J.B.

            Check the casualty figures under Bush compared with Obama.

            Oh, wait. You don’t give a $h!t about any dead soldiers or Marines. You only care about scoring political Brownie points.
            That’s why the Tea Party is taking the Senate this year. That’s why Obama is a lame duck and you’re a detestable scumhole.

            TROLLTARD.

  • Ellman48

    “Biden estimated that only 5% of the Taliban were incorrigible while 70% and then another 25% could be reasoned with.”

    Which poll did Biden rely on for these numbers? And if this breakdown is correct wouldn’t it be safe to assume that a Taliban thus constituted would have surrendered bin Laden and avoided all the devastation which followed for not doing so? Or did the numbers change because ‘The One’ had such a profound impact on the Taliban that even war and devastation could not produce?

    Dear Lord, spare this nation from another Obama-Biden-Reid-Pelosi combination and allow us to restore this country to sanity and reality after they’re gone!

  • Ellman48

    “According to Biden, these Taliban were expected to end all ties with Al
    Qaeda, accept the Afghan constitution and offer equal treatment to
    women. Obama issued the same demand last year.”

    This BS was for domestic consumption entirely. It’s difficult to imagine than Biden and Obama actually believed this assertion, for if they did then we are in for even more disasters ahead. Insanity does not produce good results.

    • Americana

      I’ll tell you why they believed it was possible because Ahmad Shad Massoud (the “Lion of Panjshir”) had basically demanded all of those things — and was achieving t hem — before he was assassinated by two al Qaida suicide bombers in 2001 just a day or two before 9/11. So Massoud proved this kind of social platform could be instated in Afghanistan if you were popular enough and had the right support. Who knows how the politics would have turned out for Massoud in the end.

      • Drakken

        Massoud was Northern Alliance, not Taliban.

        • Americana

          Exactly, but Massoud had demanded that Afghans unite against the Taliban and the Afghans had quite an effective run at the Taliban before he was assassinated. Look at the list of notable Afghans who were in the Northern Alliance camp! In fact, he was so effective at beating back the Taliban and building an alliance against it that the plan to assassinate him should have been far more effectively foreseen. If Massoud had remained alive, I have a feeling the Taliban would have been nullified as a force within Afghan tribal society for a fairly long period. If Massoud had remained alive and we had captured bin Laden early on, the situation in Afghanistan would have been very different.

  • truebearing

    Great insight on Obama’s ambivalence and self-contradiction.

    The Taliban had no respect for Bergdahl. The Afghans in general have no respect for Obama. They both see Obama and Bergdahl as duplicitous, deserters, and traitors. No warrior culture respects that kind of disloyalty and weakness. They respected Bush far more.

    On of the great ironies of Obama’s presidency was his insistence that the war in Iraq was the evil war, but Afghanistan was the righteous war, the “good” war. He would say anything to win, naturally, and it helped him win, but Obama was not interested in foreign wars, especially against Muslims. He fought the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but arguably more effectively against his own troops… American troops. His rules of engagement cost many American lives and casualties. The surge did cost the Taliban, but only for a short while. Ultimately, Obama undermined his own offensive.

    Afghanistan was the “good” war, but Obama was the terrible Commander-In-Chief. As president, he is the commanding officer of something he deeply dislikes and distrusts: the military. His definition of victory is crushing his political opponents at home, not winning military conflicts abroad. Now he is trying to extricate himself, at any cost, from the “good” war that he has already lost.

    There is a folktale that originated in Western Africa known as “Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby.” Afghanistan has become Obama’s tar baby. Brer Barack keeps trying to push it away, but the harder he tries, the more it sticks to him, and his political cause. Hopelessly mired in his own duplicity and incompetence, the “good” war is becoming Obama’s Watarloo.

    • IngeC

      Well stated!
      The most shameful part of it is the unnecessary deaths and life long injuries to our service members – the human toll and that is unforgivable.

      • AnettaBiolettimso

        my like Jacqueline implied I’m taken by surprise that
        a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month on the computer . see post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

      • PeoplesRepublicOfMd

        Obama’s policies both at home and abroad show his unbridled contempt for American citizens, (and particularly for the members of the military for whom he saved his particular form of hatred by the imposition of the rules of engagement which effectively tied one hand behind their backs in the theater of war), whether they voted for him, or not. Once the usefulness of the misguided faithful has waned, they find themselves under the bus. I still find it hard to believe that Obama has managed to maintain this imperial-like control over the dismantling of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, all the while Congress serves as his doormat and enablers.

        • RebekkahBooseyesu

          just before I saw the bank draft for $8962 , I have
          faith that my sister was actualie bringing in money in their spare time on
          their apple labtop. . there great aunt had bean doing this for under 18 months
          and at present repaid the morgage on their cottage and bought a great new Aston
          Martin DB5 . this page R­e­x­1­0­.­C­O­M­

          ge:EN-IY�
          ie�z t answered I’m dazzled that a student can get paid $8962 in 1 month on
          the internet . you could check here C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

      • truebearing

        Thanks. I agree wholeheartedly. Many have died or been wounded in a conflict Obama perpetuated for political reasons, but had no desire to win. His narcissism leaves no room for shame.

    • hiernonymous

      “The Afghans in general have no respect for Obama. They both see Obama and Bergdahl as duplicitous, deserters, and traitors.”

      On what do you base this assertion? Do you have a source, did you spend time in Afghanistan talking to different people, or do you just have a feeling?

      “The surge did cost the Taliban…”

      Oh, you noticed that, did you? Perhaps you also noticed that the previous administration started a war in Afghanistan, then promptly lost interest and allowed the Taliban to recover while the U.S. Shifted its focus to its elective war two countries to the west? Your critique seems curiously selective.

      ” As president, he is the commanding officer of something he deeply dislikes and distrusts: the military.”

      I didn’t get that impression while I was still on active service under him.

      • liz

        Maybe if you’d been one of the survivors of the Fort Hood massacre that he labeled “workplace violence” instead of terrorism you’d have a different opinion.

        • hiernonymous

          How do you suppose that demonstrates hatred of the military?

          • reader

            White washing the enemy reeks of aiding and abetting to me.

          • McNab14

            She (Liz) just did. If her statement isn’t as clear as saying ‘water is wet’, then no one here can help you understand any more clearly. And inserting your own rhetoric just now (by re-interpreting the original quote using the word “hatred” in an attempt to diminish it) only proves the shakiness you feel beneath your feet.

          • hiernonymous

            Okay, you explain it then: how would interpreting a mass shooting in the workplace as “workplace violence” show that he “deeply dislikes and distrusts” the military? A reasonable argument could be made that he was reluctant to assume that it was an act of terror, but nothing about that statement is a prima facie statement of “deep dislike” for the military.

            Here statement was clear, it was just unsupported. Instead of babbling about shaky ground, why not make the logic behind the assertion explicit?

          • truebearing

            Only someone as intentionally obtuse and oppositional as yourself would quibble over this. It is obvious to any sane person that Obama labeled the Ft Hood shootings as “workplace violence” because he is trying to minimize the awareness of the threat Muslims pose to our soldiers and the nation in general. His loyalty is to the Muslims, not his own troops. It was a grave insult to the survivors of such an act of terror to categorize it falsely for political reasons, thus profaning their loss of loved ones with lies. Even you should be able to see that, but your sight is clouded with malice.

          • hiernonymous

            “…because he is trying to minimize the awareness of the threat Muslims pose to our soldiers and the nation in general.”

            While I don’t agree that this is the case, let’s say for the sake of argument that it is so. That still doesn’t translate into “deeply dislikes and distrusts” the military. You’re not making sense here.

          • reader

            siding with the enemy – for all practical purposes – does not translate into dislike and distrust of the military? Yeah, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is, isn’t it?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Obama’s “passion” for military matters in his forthcoming memoir, and claims that practically the only time he saw that in the president was during his push to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

            When the McChrystal plan for Afghanistan leaked to The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, according to the memoir, the president raged to Gates, asking, “Is it a lack of respect for me?… Do they resent that I never served in the military? Do they think because I’m young that I don’t see what they’re doing?”

          • hiernonymous

            I was still serving at that point and we generally thought McC got what he deserved. He quite plainly had tried to publicly narrow the President’s options in a manner inconsistent with his own role. If Obama raged at that, he was quite right to do so. Shades of Truman and MacArthur.

          • truebearing

            Nice attempt at trying to lead the debate away from the point. Obama distrusted and disliked the military, like every leftist in America, and Daniel provided evidence that you tried to obscure with your irrelevant historical observations.

          • hiernonymous

            If you intend to declare that every line of thought that you have difficulty following is “irrelevant,” you might consider just keeping that comment in your clipboard.

          • truebearing

            Grandiosity getting the better of you again? There is nothing hard to follow about your blather, in content or motive. Your comment was neither complicated or remotely profound, though I don’t doubt you thought it was.

            You always try to move the debate in a direction that prevents discussion of the topic at hand. In fact, you hardly ever comment on the topic of a given article, or the content of a reply. Instead you sneer and quibble about spelling or make some other superficial criticism that makes you appear superior (in your own deludeed mind).

          • J.B.

            You never served anything anywhere.

            Now tell me how and why Seal Team Six was murdered.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Shades of Truman and McArthur indeed. Except that while Truman was trying to cover up for the treasonous sellout of the FDR crowd and warning off Republicans, he wasn’t a whiny little boy crying, “Is it a lack of respect for me?”

          • hiernonymous

            In short, you acknowledge that the President was correct on the substantive matter, but you don’t like his style. Very good.

          • truebearing

            Yes, I am. Obama has proven it in a variety of ways, such as: skipping a time honored D-Day observance in France, skipping the Memorial Day wreath laying ceremony to go on yet another vacation, cutting benefits to vets, listing vets as likely homegrown terrorists, changing the ROE in Afghanistan to favor the Taliban and expose our troops to more casualties, announcing troop withdrawals against the advice of the experts, appointing a moron as SOD, using his “brilliant” sequester to shrink the military, mothballing effective weaponry, apologizing for past US military action, purging 200 high ranking officers, denying vets health care, etc.

          • hiernonymous

            Nothing about your litany of grievances provides a logical basis for reading a characterization of the Fort Hood shooting as “workplace violence” as reflecting “deep dislike or distrust” of the military. You are employing circular logic here. You think that Mr. Obama dislikes the military, therefore any words he says are evidence of dislike of the military.

          • J.B.

            Active duty Marine Sgt Andrew Tahmooresi is rotting in a Mexican jail in between torture sessions. Filthy traitor Bowe Bergdahl was traded for five of his Taliban terrorist pals and promoted by Obama from Private to Sergeant rather than court martialed. Every time the Zero gives a mock salute to a soldier or Marine he does it with extreme contempt, like he’s flicking away a booger.

            Deep up inya, trolltard.

          • truebearing

            No, you’re full of crap. I provided a list of actions and inactions that establish an unmistakable pattern. Evidence is evidence, and the evidence of obama’s didlike of the military is obvious.
            You apparently don’t understand circular logic.

          • hiernonymous

            “Evidence is evidence, and the evidence of obama’s didlike of the military is obvious.”

            And, once again, you aren’t following the very basic issue. The question isn’t whether Obama dislikes the military; it’s whether classifying the Nadal shooting as “workplace violence” is evidence of dislike of the military.

            And, yes, claiming that it is evidence of dislike of the military because the person who said it has done other things that show dislike of the military is very much circular reasoning.

            If you’re still struggling with why, here’s an exercise for you. If Ronald Reagan had said the same thing, would it have been evidence that he disliked the military? If so, how? If not, then the words aren’t evidence of dislike of the military.

          • truebearing

            I explained it several comments ago. If you are too obtuse to understand the first comment, you will be on subsequent comments.
            This is precisely what happened with your failed attempt to defend the idiotic notion that Benghazi was the fault of the Joint Chiefs. You were given a chance to admit that the chain of command precludes the possibility of that theory, yet persisted anyway, only to later regret it when you were forced to admit it was untenable. Then you began yammering about me not reading your latest convoluted attempt to extricate yourself from the ridiculous theory.

          • hiernonymous

            “I explained it several comments ago.”

            Yes, you were wrong then, too. You claimed that Mr. Obama was trying to “minimize the awareness” of the threat that Muslims pose. While that’s a rather bizarre interpretation, it would show Mr. Obama favoring Muslims, not showing “intense dislike or distrust” of the military. You’re still talking in circles.

            “You were given a chance to admit that the chain of command precludes the possibility of that theory, yet persisted anyway…”

            It’s interesting to see you double down on your dishonesty. When I encounter this sort of thing, I always wonder who, exactly, your words are intended to persuade.

          • truebearing

            So Obama can’t favor Muslims and dislike and distrust the military? Are those mutually exclusive in your fogged brain? They go together quite well, actually, fitting an unmistakable pattern.

            I also said:

            ” It was a grave insult to the survivors of such an act of terror to categorize it falsely for political reasons, thus profaning their loss of loved ones with lies. Even you should be able to see that, but your sight is clouded with malice.”

            Here is something new for you to attempt to spin. It nukes virtually all of your assertions regarding Benghazi and why there was no attempt at a rescue:

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/cia-heard-benghazi-attackers-using-state-dept-cell-phones-to-call-terrorist/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29

          • hiernonymous

            “So Obama can’t favor Muslims and dislike and distrust the military? Are those mutually exclusive in your fogged brain?”

            Of course they’re not mutually exclusive. Nothing I wrote remotely suggests that they are. The question, of course, is not whether someone can hold those two attitudes simultaneously, but whether evidence of the one is evidence of the other, and that, plainly, it is not. When you suggest that the Pentagon’s initial classification of the incident is evidence of Obama’s support for Muslims, then accepting that argument places you no closer to establishing Obama’s alleged “deep dislike and distrust” of the military than you were before.

            It’s possible for one to like Muslims and to enjoy Gregorian chants, as well. They are not mutually exclusive. But showing that one likes Muslims doesn’t serve as evidence that one likes Gregorian chants, either.

            I also said:

            ” It was a grave insult to the survivors of such an act of terror to categorize it falsely for political reasons…

            Yes, you did say that. Contained within your own text is the allegation that Obama categorized it “for political reasons.” “Deep dislike and distrust” of the military is not a political reason.

            Here is something new for you to attempt to spin. It nukes virtually all of your assertions regarding Benghazi and why there was no attempt at a rescue:

            What assertion of mine do you imagine is even addressed by that article? If you have an argument to make, feel free to make it.

          • Americana

            Admiral McRaven was rather enthusiastic about Pres. Obama in an interview w/Wolf Blitzer. He felt Obama took a very gutsy and significant move in choosing to allow Admiral McRaven to supervise a SEAL team raid to kill bin Laden. I’d say there’s far more evidence of wanting to preserve the lies and gains of American troops than otherwise.

          • truebearing

            What you would say is typically dishonest or deluded. Obama dithered for many months before Panetta took action and ordered the hit on Bin Laden. Obama has even admitted that he wanted Bin Laden captured alive so he could be put on trial — to provide a global stage for the Islamist cause.

            Given your intellectual problems with understanding the chain of command, I don’t suppose it will do any good to point out that generals are subordinate to the president, which makes their compliments to a president meaningless while they are still serving. Some generals are left of center, so they support leftist decisions. McRaven’s comments mean less than nothing. Obama’s actions are what speak so loudly.

          • Americana

            PANETTA ORDERED THE HIT ON BIN LADEN???? Where did that little bit of nonsense come from? Suddenly finding yourself w/the chain of command dripping out your ears? Boy, you guys are willing to do and say anything to detract from what that decision entailed. Panetta ENDORSED the hit as likely a good, sure thing, but Pres. Obama as the CIC was the one who ORDERED THE MISSION. There is a difference.

            No, that is not at all HOW the delays in undertaking the mission should be interpreted The White House hoped that w/24/7 surveillance they could absolutely determine that it was indeed Osama bin Laden in the Abbottobad house. By determining that it was bin Laden, they would have eliminated the possibility they would take the enormous risk of a huge international incident by sending American troops inside Pakistani air space without permission to perform an assassination mission. The question facing Obama was if it was worth the risk to go after that guy in the hopes that it was Osama bin Laden and, as the President, that was his decision and his alone. Of course, everyone who actively participated in that decision deserve enormous respect. Those poor CIA intelligence folks who chased figments for YEARS perhaps most of all…

            Pres. Obama originally spoke about putting Osama bin Laden on trial just as Pres. Bush had done but that was quickly dumped upon analyzing the realities of a political trial of that nature and complexity. So, on further reflection of what a legal trial might presage, the decision was to make that Abbottobad mission lethal. I’m glad for you that you feel you can be so dismissive of Admiral McRaven’s own words and evident enthusiasm. So you’re suggesting that a SEAL at the top of his profession, one whose advice to fellow alumnae is to be sure that they’re willing to take the unusual steps and go headfirst down the rope, is simply pantomiming for Obama when he watched his President go head first down the rope?

          • Drakken

            Let’s see where to start, slashing the military to the bone, mainstreaming the deviants and 95 lbs women into infantry units. The insanity of the Hearts and Minds campaign COIN(granted started under Bush, but went whole hog under Obummer), Insane and suicidal ROE’s, that is just a partial list.

          • reader

            When a person – like you – pretends not to understand that the administration classifying a blatant act of islamic terrorism as “work place violence” is executing a political bait and switch, do you expect to be perceived as a slick operator or an imbicel? That’s all I want to know.

          • hiernonymous

            …classifying a blatant act of islamic terrorism as “work place violence” is executing a political bait and switch…

            How does “executing a political bait and switch” translate into “deeply dislikes and distrusts” the military? The two concepts aren’t even related.

            …do you expect to be perceived as a slick operator or an imbicel?

            That was classic.

          • reader

            1. see below: white washing of the enemy is aiding and abetting.

            2. Classic what? Classic slick or classic imbicel?

          • hiernonymous

            Classic what? Classic slick or classic imbicel?

            Classic, in the sense that while spelling errors are par for the course, you want to try to avoid them when insulting someone’s intelligence. The word you are groping for (and incidentally exemplifying) is “imbecile.”

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Thinking that you can win a debate of ideas by playing spell checker is a better example of “imbecile”.

          • hiernonymous

            Good thing I didn’t do that, either.

          • truebearing

            Yes, you did, and it isn’t the first time. In fact, spell checking is essentially what you do with every comment. You try to demean your opponent by quibbling and pointing out minor flaws. When your own flaws are obviated, you spend days trying to exonerate your delusional perfection. You can’t be wrong about anything, but everyone else is wrong about everything. Omniscience is a terrible burden to bear when it’s strictly delusional.

          • hiernonymous

            “Yes, you did, and it isn’t the first time. In fact, spell checking is essentially what you do with every comment. ”

            You really do need to be led through the simplest exchanges. Daniel’s comment had two parts: that I was spell checking, and that I thought I could “win a debate” thereby. Think about it a while longer and it will come to you.

            “When your own flaws are obviated, you spend days trying to exonerate your delusional perfection.”

            That sounds very much like English, but it’s not. You are trying much too hard. Stick to words you understand. You misused “exonerate” there, and you seem to think that “obviate” means something like “to make obvious.” No worries, in pointing that out, I don’t think I’m “winning a debate.” I’m just making a point.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Thinking that you can win a debate of ideas because you can play grammar national socialist is a better example of “imbecile”.

            But if you stay the course, you’ll finally be good for something.

            Probably for the first time in your little trollfest here. Maybe the first time in your life.

          • hiernonymous

            “Thinking that you can win a debate of ideas because you can play grammar national socialist is a better example of “imbecile”.”

            Good thing I didn’t do that, either. That said, it’s interesting that you don’t think that grammar and clarity are important elements of debate. That explains a great deal.

            “But if you stay the course, you’ll finally be good for something.

            Probably for the first time in your little trollfest here. Maybe the first time in your life.”

            I”ll leave you to ponder two significant and separate ironies of this passage.

          • truebearing

            Yes, I admit that I misused “obviate.” You’re a fine nitpicker, and no slouch at ankle-biting.
            Exonerate is harder to abandon, give your pathological level of arrogance. If it isn’t a crime, it should be.

            Now, when are you going to admit making mistakes, as you’ve made plenty since I’ve had the displeasure of debating you. Would you like to start with your ridiculous defense of the claim that the Joint Chiefs were responsible for Benghazi?

          • Americana

            Since that is my little brainworm that’s bugging you, and which you keep bringing up in a vain attempt to justify your misunderstanding of Benghazi, I’ll reply and this will be the last time you try to misinterpret or weasel out of the meaning I attached to what the Joint Chiefs said and did which hieronymous correctly described. The Joint Chiefs admitted there were unforeseen flaws in the response coverage in that theater. which were illustrated the night of the Benghazi attack. They determined a better response capability would be better ensured by stationing a Rapid Response Force at the Sigonella Base sometime the following year along w/revising the Rapid Response Forces that were to be placed on all Marine Expeditionary Forces. It’s hard to say if this new deployment obviates the need for any more tweaking of forces in the near future but if they did it, it means something was lacking previously.

          • truebearing

            Wrong. Hiero keeps bringing it up because he defended your idiotic theory about the Joint Chiefs being responsible for Benghazi. I see you have modified your theory now that it has sunk into your head that the original theory was absurd.

          • hiernonymous

            You’re still lying about this. Six days ago: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/fp-mag/five_jihadis_for_one_deserter#comment-1421763819

            TB: Her argument is that Benghazi was the Joint Chiefs fault for not having adequate rapid response capability, and she’s wrong.

            H: That’s not how I read it. I took from her argument that the decision to establish a reaction force at Signella was tacit acknowledgement that there had been no asset to call on earlier. I don’t think she was making the claim that “Benghazi was the Joint Chief’s fault.” She’ll have to weigh in on that if she so chooses…. I don’t know if your tendency to oversimplify is a rhetorical gambit or a limitation in your attention, but you should be able to understand that I’m not arguing that Benghazi was the Joint Chief’s fault; I’m acknowledging that Americana has a point in noting that the establishment of a reaction capability at Sigonella is one piece of evidence in support of the contention that there was no comparable asset for the COCOM commander or his subordinates to deploy on the night of Benghazi. It’s not really difficult or complicated.

            Again, I note that I don’t compulsively refer to those with whom I disagree as liars. As a rule, simply pointing out the facts suffices. Lying is the deliberate misrepresentation of the truth when you know better. As we can see, you have known better for at least six days, yet you continue to aggressively misrepresent the truth.

          • hiernonymous

            *crickets*

          • truebearing
          • hiernonymous

            Again, you fail to explain what it is that you think you have discovered.

            “Check this out, idiot…”

            More class.

          • Americana

            I’ve NEVER debated whether or not Benghazi was a terrorist-initiated attack vs a “demonstration.” Know why? Because, to me, who’s looking for the bigger picture and for ways to NOT LET it happen again, that aspect is IMMATERIAL. You’re insisting on me taking notice of it and I’m saying to you and to the rest of the folks who are mesmerized by this kind of little additional factoid, “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE? The fact this was committed by terrorists has no bearing on what you FIX/DO to ENSURE THIS NEVER happens again. Who is the idiot again? I’m sooooo confused on that score.

            Benghazi happened because the facilities weren’t defensible and impregnable and they were too lightly defended and, most of all and the fact which you keep disputing because you want to point to facts like it was TERRORISTS and not a demonstration, is that the Rapid Reaction Force that should have been within hailing distance of Benghazi wasn’t close enough to do any good in a battle that lasted UNDER TWO and a HALF HOURS. When Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith were dead within an hour and a half of the onslaught, what matters is TIME AND DISTANCE TO THE BATTLE FOR RELIEF FORCES.

          • Americana

            Is this what you’re pointing to as the saviour move that would have saved Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith? You’ll note that in the next to last sentence he says it would have taken them THREE and a HALF HOURS to get to Benghazi. Amb. Stevens and Sean Smith were dead within the first hour and a half of the fighting commencing. Once again, the timing doesn’t work.
            ____________________________________________________

            Maj. Stahl, C-17 pilot — “You would’ve thought that we would have had a little bit more of an alert posture on 9/11,” Stahl added. “A hurried-up timeline probably would take us [an] hour-and-a-half to get off the ground and three hours and fifteen minutes to get down there. So we could’ve gone down there and gotten them easily.”

          • Americana

            Oh, I missed one thing. The pilot Maj. Stahl said they’d need an hour preparation time in addition to the 3 hours and 15 minutes flight time. That’s 4.5 hours total so they’re even more out of the correct timeframe to have saved the lives of the Ambassador and Information Officer Smith.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s fairly typical trolling.

            Trolls like Hiero offer nothing substantive, instead they are trying to disrupt a discussion by sidelining it or trying to take some minor aspect of it apart.

            They attempt to draw emotional responses from you while pretending to be above the fray.

          • Americana

            Having just had you whip out your old “narcissist” slur, yet again, you’re hardly the one to point the finger at what is and isn’t a legitimate debate tactic. Just FYI.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Well you did, but at least you continue denying everything.

            You clearly have learned well from your Obama.

          • reader

            You’re not the first one equating spelling prowess to intelligence. But since your intelligence is insulted, I take it that you wrote this to be perceived slick. And, I have to say, it kind of does insult other people’s intelligence.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Why not ask the actual victims.

            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/12/theblaze-investigation-how-obama-and-the-army-betrayed-the-victims-of-fort-hood/

            Fort Hood Police Sergeant Kimberly Munley sat next to first lady Michelle Obama as a guest at President Barack Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address. Munley, who was still in a wheelchair at the time but able to walk using crutches, was one of two officers who stopped Hasan’s rampage. Her partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, fired the final shot that left Hasan paralyzed from the neck down.

            The president “broke all his promises and betrayed us,” Munley said.

            For Ray, who was deployed multiple times to Iraq, what he calls the Army’s lack of candor about Fort Hood is disheartening. He helped rescue nine people from the building the day of the shooting and watched as Hasan executed his plan in the same way he witnessed terrorists attack U.S. troops while he was serving overseas.

            “Calling this workplace violence is a lie, and we know that by the contacts that [Hasan] had … emails and everything else that came out during the trial,” Ray said. “But at the end of the day, I would like to have seen my legislators not just propose that this is a terrorist attack but actually pass legislation saying so, but people are cowards and they don’t want to do it.”

          • hiernonymous

            And, again, you’ve shown that someone is unhappy that the attack was called “workplace violence.” You’ve not shown that the terminology is rooted in “deep dislike or distrust” of the military. Do you plan to get around to that part eventually?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Those ‘someones’ are members of the military who were victimized or were there that day.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br-a0dpsCu8

          • truebearing

            “Someone?” You mean fellow soldiers (assuming you aren’t lying about your service)? Pretty cold way to put it. Hmmm…lack of empathy, delusions of grandeur, inflated sense of importance…you’re sounding a tad sociopathic, or is it narcissistic? You decide.

          • hiernonymous

            “You decide.”

            Sure. I think that when I pointed out the unseemliness of applying such terms to your political opponents, you mistook it for a personal button. The fact that you are so obviously trying to push it now is suggestive.

          • truebearing

            You’re wrong, yet again. I bring it up because it is so pronounced. If you were capable of self-reflection, you would recognize something is seriously wrong with your detached, cold perspective, but you don’t think anything is wrong with you, which is typical of narcissism. In fact, that is the biggest problem in treating narcissism.

            You can try to act like our discussion of psychological aberration didn’t bother you, but it did. Yaybe not because you care about being labeled, but because you like to remain hidden and undecipherable.

          • hiernonymous

            “You can try to act like our discussion of psychological aberration didn’t bother you, but it did.”

            It seems very important to you to think so. When you understand why that is, you will have learned something very important about yourself. Until then, you are trapped in a cycle of futile and increasingly strident attempts to prove yourself to someone who has very little interest in you.

            You may be a perfectly swell guy in you real life, an upstanding father, loving husband, hard worker. But you have made it important to yourself to win an acknowledgment from me that you are very bright, or, if that is not forthcoming, you want to bring me down a peg. Both are beyond your talents. You are not very bright. At least, not in the sense that you follow and make arguments clearly – you may be absolutely brilliant in ways that aren’t obvious here. You aren’t stupid, at least not in any absolute sense, but you are starting to let your emotions make you that way. You’re simply average, and you seem to want very much to be seen as more. Sorry. Ther are a couple of sharp minds at work on these forums, such that when I see a post from one of them, I know I’m in for an interesting conversation. Yours isn’t one of them. That upsets you. Too bad. I am on a master’s swim team. I race open water distance. I am decidedly mediocre. I won’t get faster by resenting the faster swimmers. I’ll get faster by working at my swimming.

            You won’t get better at logic and argument by issuing resentment-laden pop psychology profiles of those who are “faster” than you. You won’t do it by announcing victories, offering insults, taking refuge in logical errors such as straw man, or by being dishonest. You’ll do it by doing real reading and real arguing, not on blogs and other refuges of intellectual mediocrity, but among those who know their craft. Take courses, join speaking or debating societies, write for publication where you have to do real research and make real arguments. That’s the sort of thing that you must do to get better, and you must get better if extracting respect from me continues to be your decidedly odd goal.

          • truebearing

            Blah, blah, blah. More retaliation, proving only that you lied about your true feelings about the narcissism I have identified in you.

            It is interesting that you stalk me, yet find my comments so uninteresting. Surely a genius such as yourself would seek out someone of your own lofty status. Oh, that’s right. You have no peers, in your own mind. Megalomania doesn’t admit any peers.

            Don’t worry about hurting my feelings with your little screed. I expected narcissistic rage, and you predictably delivered. As I said before, narcissists make lousy psychologists because they can’t see others objectively, and see no reason why they should. You see other people as shrubs that need to be trimmed down to a point where you are always taller. You’re a procrustean troll.

          • Americana

            It’s important to have a “detached, cold perspective” when you’re evaluating facts and foreign policy w/a heart that you don’t necessarily wear on your sleeve. We’re not talking about grandma and grandpa here or the grandkids or what it’s like to…. So, if I were you, I’d just CHILL about the human aspects of hieronymous’ thinking because it’s abundantly clear that if you’ve got nothing else to hang your hat on, you always revert to wheeling out the old psychoanalysis (emphasis on “PSYCHO”). It’s been sh*t-canned for a reason and the reasoning is sound.

          • truebearing

            We’re talking about human beings who were victims of a mass shooting by an evil Muslim. We’re talking about the loved ones of the victims, and hiernonymouse is talking about them like they are inanimate objects. I guess he’s been conversing with you too much.

            The fact that you both get so worked up about being outed is quite amusing, but may I remind you that I wasn’t the one who first spotted your mental aberrations. Also, no one is doing Freudian psychoanalysis here. When traits are as conspicuous as with you two, any fairly well informed person could spot them like neon in a dark desert night.

          • Americana

            truebearing, the MOST MENTAL of MENTALISTS.

            This is a stupid tactic that was divined to be a pretty good one to use against Pres. Obama because it takes no evidence and no facts. It just is a fact unto itself. (Yeah, right.) So now it’s being used against the entire political spectrum by those wishing to eviscerate someone if they don’t have the actual factual chops to do so.

            I’ve got to laugh at your attempts to add “facts” to your assertions. You make the claim that “I wasn’t the first one who spotted your mental aberrations.” As if the fact that you’re the second or the third or the fourth guy in the FPM Anti-Troll Rapid Response Relief Force to notice “these mental aberrations” alters the fact this is a TACTIC, nothing more. You don’t want me to write a long analysis of the traits I see on display from you.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            In his mind, his “fellows” are more likely to have long scraggly beards than be soldiers.

            We already got a sample of this mindset in the last week.

          • Americana

            The “someone” in that sentence is a perfectly legitimate use of the pronoun. CHILL OUT. My third grade teacher would have a field day w/you trying to make hay out of the “cold” way hieronymous is using “someone” in that sentence.

            This pronoun use is a non-fact. Argue the facts and you won’t have to resort to these cheap-ass mentalist tactics. You wouldn’t be allowed to use this sort of crapola in a televised debate w/a moderator who’s got his wits about him. Consider yourself under television moderator rules.

          • J.B.

            Calling islamic terrorism against soldiers “workplace violence” is as extreme a show of contempt as humanly possible. Not that Obama is human.

            Only a deranged moron could argue otherwise. Do you even know that you’re a lunatic? I’m sure plenty of people around you have pointed it out- including your family and the doctors treating your mental illness.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s amazing how many people confuse being sure with being right.

          • J.B.

            Whatever, Caulfield. Enjoy your nutter butter, you whackjob. Seriously. The jig is up. Everybody knows Obama is an anti-American islamophile. The only person who still believes the media hype about him is………him. he isn’t as crazy as you are but he’s just as stupid.

            Ask yourself, tolltard. Is your life better after five years of an Obamanation? Is America better off? The only people benefitting from his misrule are the world’s villains. Islamopithecine creatures like the Taliban and the Iranian mullahs. Putin and his growing empire. The Mexican drug cartels.

            The Tea Party is the new poluitical and social powerforce of America. The lame duck Obama will be neutered by the end of this year’s election cycle. Not that she ever had a pair to begin with. People are sick and tired of leftists and leftism. Better hope Obamacare lasts long enough to pay for your meds, freakboy.

          • hiernonymous

            Hope that was therepeutic. Is this Jeff Bargholz?

          • truebearing

            Always the supercilious narcissist.

          • hiernonymous

            Did you recently accuse me of stalking? Just asking.

          • J.B.

            I need money, not therapy. You’re personally familar with the costs of therapy, so you better earn those trollbucks to pay for it.

          • hiernonymous

            Sorry to hear you are in bad fiscal shape. To answer your earlier question, I am doing better than I was 5 years ago. I retired from the military at a very bad time for the economy, so I planned ahead. I spent the time to get a degree in my desired field. While I was in school, I tightened my belt, lived very simply, and found a volunteer position at a potential job prospect. When I graduated, I had the skills, I had made myself known in the field, I had made my work ethic known to potential employers, and I had job offers on my graduation. I did my part, but I also got help: the GI Bill paid for my degree, my retirement pay kept my mortgage paid, my wife is endlessly patient, and as a result, I can afford to post here on an amateur basis. I can’t complain.

          • truebearing

            It’s even more amazing how you confuse having a thought with being right.

          • hiernonymous

            Guilty. I do happen to believe that thinking is a good start to being right. You might find it works better than emoting.

          • Americana

            I posted this again in case you missed it. To me, it’s a very simple question of what charges are available. The military obviously needs to add terrorism to its criminal code. But, of course, that means they must finally decide how to handle the issue of “enemy combatant.” Something which they have been putting off doing because of Guantaamo and sundry other legal nightmares. ***There is no terrorism charge under the UCMJ according to this former Marine lawyer:***

            (Former Marine) >>>> “The petition is an emotionally charged misreading of the situation that presents what was actually a procedural, legal challenge as if it were an ideological campaign led by the government. First and foremost, prosecutors did not pursue “Terrorism” or “Act of Terror” because Courts-Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (PDF) do not currently include such a charge. Secondly, acquiescence to the demand that Hasan be deemed an “enemy combatant” would have created far more legal confusion, making the prosecution’s case more difficult to prove.”

          • Drakken

            There isn’t a terrorist charge under the UCMJ, but there is quite a bit one could be charged with under the treason statute.

          • J.B.

            And homicide.

          • Americana

            Then how would you have crafted the charges, Drakken, in order to match the crimes up as best as possible as well as ensure he was given very limited opportunity to legally maneuver out of the situation? Not that Hasan gave any signs of doing that. But I think the JAG lawyers were definitely worried about what could happen. When are they going to get the lead out and add TERRORISM to the UCMJ? This is simply outrageous to be in the situation we’re in w/these incidents.

          • J.B.

            Former Marine lawyer? Yeah, I believe you. You’re just another OFAtroll, probably using a prison computer. Everything you wrote is irrelevant. Hassan is irrefutably guilty and only Obama is keeping him alive.

          • Americana

            Do you specialize in idiotic comic relief in these threads? Have I intimated ANYWHERE at ANY TIME that I don’t believe Maj. Hasan is guilty of murder and treason and that he got what he deserved in the guilty verdict? Do a search, that was a published article, gonzo bozo boy. Besides, Drakken has agreed w/me so he obviously knows the UCMJ doesn’t include a terrorism charge otherwise he’d chew me up and spit me out.

            This information is NOT IRRELEVANT since people are complaining how inappropriate the charges are/were, but it’s obvious they don’t know that TERRORISM hasn’t yet been given its own charges in the UCMJ. Oh, and since Maj. Hasan received the death penalty, it’s only a matter of time before he’s executed.

          • Americana

            There is no terrorism charge in the Military Code of Justice. See the full story lower down in the thread.

          • Drakken

            Yes that is true, but treason is sure as h*ll in the book.

          • Americana

            How exactly would treason be used as the legal charge for his terroristic murders of his fellow servicemen and women? Is there a clause in the treason charge that would satisfy these families that he’s being prosecuted for multiple murders and attempted murders? Sure, treason is a capital crime but it’s certainly ONLY ONE ASPECT of the crimes he committed.

          • J.B.

            So what?

          • Americana

            Here’s an interesting article on why Maj. Hasan was charged w/workplace violence. It may not be emotionally and psychologically satisfying to have the Military make this call about what the charge should be, but it will make sense if you read this story.
            _____________________________________________________

            The Army Was Right Not Labeling Hasan’s Killing as TerrorismAUG 27, 2013 4:45 AM – BY ANDREW BORENE

            Of course Hasan was a terrorist but the Pentagon’s decision to label his killing “workplace violence” instead of terrorism was the right call, writes lawyer and former Marine Andrew Borene.

            On Friday a military jury convicted Major Nidal Hasan on more than 40 counts of murder and attempted murder for his 2009 attack that killed 13 and injured 32 Americans at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas. Controversy has surrounded the trial due to both the unique awfulness of Hasan’s crime and because of the Pentagon’s decision to categorize the attack as workplace violence instead of terrorism. The controversy’s centerpiece has been the accusation that the terrorism charge was deliberately avoided out of political cowardice or a desire to deny benefits to the victims. But this claim misses a key point—trials are about justice not politics, and the Army used the best charge available to obtain an important conviction.

            The verdict reopens an opportunity for national conversation about what constitutes terrorism and how we fight it, whether as a nation at war against a foreign enemy or as an ongoing law enforcement challenge to be managed with special investigative tools. The truth is that there are no definitive answers and either approach will be incomplete if used in isolation.

            As a Marine veteran, I too have found it puzzling that the U.S. government did not uniformly designate the 2009 Fort Hood attacks as “terrorism” from the start (the attack does not even show up on the November 5 entry in the National Counterterrorism Center’s 2013 terrorism calendar). But as a lawyer, I see the government’s logic based on its consideration of precedential counterterrorism cases and the surest course for conviction. That said, we’re talking specifically about the criminal conviction. Hasan was clearly motivated by a jihadist ideology, but in fighting terrorism over the past decade, we have given the word terrorism several legal meanings apart from its general usage, and it is the narrower legal standards that count in court.

            Hasan’s role as the shooter was never in doubt and his motivations were not hidden. Prior to his attack, the signs of his radicalization were clear. He had promoted a fundamentalist Islamist ideology in a presentation to his Army medical peers and had communicated with the radical cleric Anwar Al-Alawki, an American born Al Qaeda cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in 2011. Hasan’s courtroom defense (which he mounted himself despite the judge’s admonition that he allow an Army JAG to defend him), hinged not on whether he was the shooter but on his self-professed belief that his fellow soldiers deserved to be killed.

            Had the Army pursued a terrorism charge in another federal court, they would have effectively granted Hasan’s attempt to make that courtroom a much larger stage for his ideology and martyrdom—instead, the prosecution kept the trial focused and secured an easy conviction. So, where’s the problem?

            Trials are about justice not politics. The Army used the best charge available to obtain a conviction.

            Several weeks ago, National Review magazine started an online petition calling on the government to designate Hasan’s attack an act of war against the United States.

            To: Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense

            The Administration has designated the Ft. Hood massacre as workplace violence, and not what it was: an Act of Terror. By not designating this event as such an act, it disrespects the lives of the 13 who lost their lives that day, and dozens more who were injured and those helped their fellow soldiers.

            Furthermore, Nidal Hasan will not be tried as an enemy combatant, but instead will be court-martialed.

            Finally, without an Act of Terror designation, those wounded in defense of our nation will not receive a Purple Heart.

            This is outrageous and I call on you to change the official designation now before the trial for Nidal Hasan proceeds any further.

            The petition is an emotionally charged misreading of the situation that presents what was actually a procedural, legal challenge as if it were an ideological campaign led by the government. First and foremost, prosecutors did not pursue “Terrorism” or “Act of Terror” because Courts-Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (PDF) do not currently include such a charge. Secondly, acquiescence to the demand that Hasan be deemed an “enemy combatant” would have created far more legal confusion, making the prosecution’s case more difficult to prove.

            We must be sensitive to those victims and their families who have called for the terrorism charge, because without the recognition of terrorism they are denied both material benefits and emotional resolution. Nonetheless, the court’s job is not to yield to victims’ wishes, however sympathetic they are, but to follow the dictates of due process and justice.

            Consider that if Hasan had been labeled as an “enemy combatant”, the next important legal determination would have to be whether he was protected with special privileges under the lex specialis principle of International Humanitarian Law—or whether he should have been treated instead as an “unprivileged enemy belligerent” under some form of military commissions derived from the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The AUMF is the closest thing our nation has to any declaration of war at present, and it is an imperfect and aging authority for fighting the many imitators of Al Qaeda, whether at home or abroad. A quick review of the past decade’s crippling challenges with detaining, holding and transferring Guantanamo Bay’s current detainees alone would have to deter such a complicated “enemy combatant” prosecution under AUMF.

            The National Review’s demand also speciously assumes that a court would necessarily determine the AUMF applies to Hasan. The AUMF is short and clear, it specifically authorizes that:

            “[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

            Yes, Hasan drew inspiration from the radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki; however, asserting that Hasan was connected to the 9/11 attacks is a bridge too far. No matter how emotionally satisfying it might be for us to condemn Hasan with words, a hard criminal conviction with a potential death sentence is much more important for effective counterterrorism—and a conviction that upholds the law is our nation’s first duty to the victims, survivors and families devastated by the attack.

            Additionally, mechanisms remain for the Pentagon or the Secretary of the Army to more clearly articulate how the Hasan attack is viewed as an insider attack by a homegrown terrorist with international terrorism as its goal, ensuring the victims and the heroes of that day receive proper remembrance, recognition and compensation. In 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a similar decision for the military victims of 9/11, and a service branch secretary has the ability to determine Purple Heart eligibility according to this rule:

            After 28 March 1973, as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.

            Though the Hasan trial itself may have lacked the gratifying emotional drama of global political theater, our nation of laws must move more slowly than the loosely bound tyranny envisioned by many of our enemies. We should not want it any other way.

            In the end, we, as a nation, show ourselves to respect the law and to move in the general direction of what is right and good. Nidal Hasan has also shown himself to the world for what he is—a murderous, deranged, religious zealot without any respect for human life. Whether executed or not, he will now spend the remainder of his life in prison away from cameras and further attention, ensuring his rightful place as dust in history’s trash bin.

          • hiernonymous

            Some thought-provoking material in there. Thanks for posting it.

          • Americana

            To me, it’s a very simple question of what charges are available. The military obviously needs to add terrorism to its criminal code. But, of course, that means they must finally decide how to handle the issue of “enemy combatant.” Something which they have been putting off doing because of Guantaamo and sundry other legal nightmares. ***There is no terrorism charge under the UCMJ according to this former Marine lawyer:***

            “The petition is an emotionally charged misreading of the situation that presents what was actually a procedural, legal challenge as if it were an ideological campaign led by the government. First and foremost, prosecutors did not pursue “Terrorism” or “Act of Terror” because Courts-Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (PDF) do not currently include such a charge. Secondly, acquiescence to the demand that Hasan be deemed an “enemy combatant” would have created far more legal confusion, making the prosecution’s case more difficult to prove.”

          • Drakken

            Hassan should have been charged with treason and hung.

          • Americana

            Would that have satisfied the families? That charge of treason still doesn’t ensure that all those killed and wounded would receive a Purple Heart, does it?

          • truebearing

            Bullseye.

        • fiddler

          And of course the trial never got off the ground (2009) until after the election (2012). How convenient.

        • Americana

          liz, this paragraph below is the opinion of a former Marine who’s a lawyer. The full editorial of his is posted farther down. I find it very strange that the UCMJ has no terrorism charge under which to charge Maj. Hasan. You’d think w/the country being aware that there is going to be terrorism for the foreseeable future that terrorism charges should be in both civilian and the military law but terrorism is not covered in full. Why not? It’s a very complex set of reasons. Partly, it’s because our laws are accretionary.
          _____________________________________________________

          Former Marine/lawyer: “The petition is an emotionally charged misreading of the situation that presents what was actually a procedural, legal challenge as if it were an ideological campaign led by the government. First and foremost, prosecutors did not pursue “Terrorism” or “Act of Terror” because Courts-Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (PDF) do not currently include such a charge. Secondly, acquiescence to the demand that Hasan be deemed an “enemy combatant” would have created far more legal confusion, making the prosecution’s case more difficult to prove.”

        • Americana

          To me, it’s a very simple question of what charges are available. The military obviously needs to add terrorism to its criminal code. But, of course, that means they must finally decide how to handle the issue of “enemy combatant.” Something which they have been putting off doing because of Guantaamo and sundry other legal nightmares. ***There is no terrorism charge under the UCMJ according to this former Marine lawyer:***

          “The petition is an emotionally charged misreading of the situation that presents what was actually a procedural, legal challenge as if it were an ideological campaign led by the government. First and foremost, prosecutors did not pursue “Terrorism” or “Act of Terror” because Courts-Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (PDF) do not currently include such a charge. Secondly, acquiescence to the demand that Hasan be deemed an “enemy combatant” would have created far more legal confusion, making the prosecution’s case more difficult to prove.”

        • Americana

          To me, it’s a very simple question of what charges are available. The military obviously needs to add terrorism to its criminal code. But, of course, that means they must finally decide how to handle the issue of “enemy combatant.” Something which they have been putting off doing because of Guantaamo and sundry other legal nightmares. ***There is no terrorism charge under the UCMJ according to this former Marine lawyer:***

          “The petition is an emotionally charged misreading of the situation that presents what was actually a procedural, legal challenge as if it were an ideological campaign led by the government. First and foremost, prosecutors did not pursue “Terrorism” or “Act of Terror” because Courts-Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (PDF) do not currently include such a charge. Secondly, acquiescence to the demand that Hasan be deemed an “enemy combatant” would have created far more legal confusion, making the prosecution’s case more difficult to prove.”

          • liz

            That’s a load of legalese bullish!t. Obama could wave his magic little pen around and go around the law for that just like he does everything else. He just doesn’t want to.

          • Americana

            It’s not legalese BS. What’s Pres. Obama supposed to do as far as you’re concerned? This is one of those instances where he’s not King Obama much as some would like to claim so. There are some things on which Obama has latitude and others on which he does not. This is one of the latter. There are a TON of lawyers both inside the military and outside who’ve been talking about the lack of terrorism-specific laws. I’m of the mind that we cannot wait for the accretionary practice of case law to decide some of the legal lexicon viz terrorism. I’ve been talking about this issue since they first began incarcerating prisoners at Gitmo they’d captured on the battlefield. Whatever legal decisions we make will affect our treatment of these guys from here on out. The lawyers have been loathe to make those decisions, never mind the American people.

          • Drakken

            As for the ragheads in GITMO, they get no protections, line them up on the windward side of GITMO and bloody well shoot them. If they don’t have the stomach for that, hang them one at a time and then feed the sharks.

          • Drakken

            There is a treason charge that ragheaded SOB could have been charged under, but the PC addled administration keeps wanting to treat Islamic jihad like a law enforcement problem instead of dealing with the savages with a military solution.

          • Americana

            Well, I’m a little more sanguine than you are about why the military hasn’t gotten around to including TERRORISM in its charges. I don’t think they’re treating it as a LE problem. It’s more that they don’t have a way to straddle the international legal aspects as well as the foreign policy aspects. They’re NOT avoiding it exactly as far as I can tell, they’re simply not yet ready to make all the decisions up and down the line to figure out all the ancillary things that go along w/the treason charge. That is something they’re loathe to do w/Gitmo’s combatants not being dealt with. I’m sure most people would love to deal w/the Gitmo detainees in that fashion, but we’re signatories to the Geneva Convention for a reason.

        • Americana

          You do know there is no terrorism charge in the military code of justice under courts martial?

        • Americana

          There’s no terrorism charge in the Code of Military Justice. That’s how that came about.

      • nomoretraitors

        No, the “previous administration” did not “start a war in Afghanistan.” It was in response to the attacks on 9/11, where Al Qaeda had set up shop (the Taliban were given an ultimatum before the war started to kick out Al Qaeda, but refused).
        I find your claim to be a veteran dubious, but if you are telling the truth and didn’t notice his disdain for the military and the country in general, then you are seriously obtuse

        • hiernonymous

          No, the “previous administration” did not “start a war in Afghanistan.”

          Well, yes, it did. It may have been perfectly justified in doing so, but that doesn’t change the fact. WWI did not start when Gavrilo Princip assassinated Ferdinand, but when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.

          I find your claim to be a veteran dubious…

          And?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Oh look, pointless quibbling from a pointless troll.

            Wars start when military action happens, not when a declaration is made.

            That’s why you used the example of WW1, not WW2.

          • hiernonymous

            “Wars start when military action happens…”

            In WWI, the two actions were simultaneous – Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and took military action. The assassination was an act of terror, not a military act.

            “That’s why you used the example of WW1, not WW2.”

            Why, no. I used WWI because it’s the one that was sparked by an act of terror, and is thus analogous. I’d have thought that fact so elementary that it would not have escaped you.

            The war in Afghanistan did not begin on 9/11. It began when the Afghans refused the ultimatum presented by the Bush administration to turn over bin Ladin, and the U.S. followed through with an attack. If you don’t see the echoes between that and the Austro-Hungarian ultimatums to the Serbs, it’s because you don’t want to.

            Note that the similarities run even deeper – in both cases, the ultimatums were presented, not to the authors of the initial terror attacks, but to states that supported the perpetrators but were blameless in the actual attacks. Before you start typing with your knees, that’s not to say that targeting Serbia or Afghanistan was wrong – when states support terrorists, they rightly open themselves up to retaliation from the terrorists’ victims – but the war began when a state chose to engage in military action, as you say.

            WWII began when major industrial powers launched wars of territorial acquisition on their neighbors. There’s no analogy between that and the war in Afghanistan.

            That’s why I used the example of WW1, not WW2.

          • truebearing

            Ah, trying to run away and hide under a pile of dusty history?

          • hiernonymous

            That made even less sense than is usual for you.

            If you are having your usual difficulty in following the conversation, just ask, and I’ll explain it to you.

          • truebearing

            It din’t make sense because you didn’t want it to. You are scuttling backwards through history, trying to find a precedent that proves your dishonest argument because you can’t win on the merits.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            And Hiero has fetched up on arguing that the bombing of a terrorist group in Afghanistan is just like WW1.

            I couldn’t come up with a sillier analogy if I tried.

          • truebearing

            If he would just stick to spelling, grammar, and punctuation, he might have a purpose in life.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The “act of terror” was ancillary to the true causes of WW1. Both wars were fought between major industrial powers fighting over spheres of influence.

            The reason you’re avoiding WW2 is because your ridiculous analogy collapses if you have to apply it there.

          • hiernonymous

            “The reason you’re avoiding WW2 is because your ridiculous analogy collapses if you have to apply it there.”

            Since there is no associated act of terror sparking WW2, you’re quite right – there is no analogy. It’s not clear how you suppose this to be a weakness in my argument.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            History, like everything else, is your weak point.

            You’re ignoring the Gleiwitz incident, which had as much to do with the real causes of WW2, as the Princip assassination.

          • hiernonymous

            Except that it didn’t. Gleiwitz was a false flag operation intended to provide an excuse for a course of action already decided on. The assassination of Ferdinand, on the other hand, was both symptomatic of the nationalist tensions that underlay the war, and was the genuine proximate cause of the sequence of events that led to war.

            The obvious point that you are trying to avoid is that in no case is the provoking incident considered the beginning of the war. Gleiwitz wasn’t a terrorist attack, but however you wish to characterize it, it didn’t mark the beginning of the war.

            “History, like everything else, is your weak point.”

            Oh, dear.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “Gleiwitz was a false flag operation intended to provide an excuse for a course of action already decided on.”

            You don’t say.

            WW1 would have happened regardless of the Princip assassination. Your insistence otherwise reveals a shallow understanding of history.

          • truebearing

            He has to keep everything shallow. If he goes too deep it gets harder to effectively lie.

          • hiernonymous

            It might or might not have. The situation was certainly fraught. But it wouldn’t have started when it did, as it did.

            Unlike Gleiwitz, the assassination actually moved and changed events. Austria-Hungary was put on the spot. The structural elements if a decaying multinational empire facing a young nationalist state were already in place, but by assassinating the heir to the throne, the terrorists forced the Austro-Hungarian hand. Austria did not have the option to remain passive. Doing so would have been, in effect, to surrender Bosnia to the Serbs, as well as to inspire further separatist risings within the Empire. Absent the assassination, there are no Russian threats, no Imperial blank checks, no Russian mobilization, and no need for a German preemptive attack on France.

            Were the conditions ripe for another crisis to lead to general war? Certainly. Would the sequence of events that led to that hypothetical war result in the same alliances and the same postwar allocation of blame? Unlikely.

            Try to argue that Gleiwitz allowed a terrorist group to force Hitler into action.

          • J.B.

            Assasination is not terrorism and George Bush did not start a war with Afghanistan or even the Taliban. The Taliban harbored Bin Laden after 911. End of story, lunatic.

            Now take your medication.

          • hiernonymous

            “Assasination[sic] is not terrorism…”

            No?

          • J.B.

            No. The Duke wasn’t assassinated to scare anybody

            BTW, correcting typos is a child’s tactic. Not that you were able to paste my sentence with proper diction, you trolltarded hypocrite. You haven’t been stalking me on Disqus lately. I guess my screen name changes are too hard for a mental deviant to follow. Try to keep up, trolltard.

          • hiernonymous

            Here’s what our own National Counterterrorism Center has to say on the matter:

            Assassination is a tactic used by nearly all terrorist groups, although
            far less frequently than other types of armed attacks. Assassination,
            when used as a terrorist tactic, is the targeted killing of a country’s
            public officials or individuals who represent the political, economic,
            military, security, social, religious, media, or cultural
            establishments. The killings can be motivated by ideology, religion,
            politics, or nationalism. Most terrorist groups conduct assassinations
            to eliminate enemies, intimidate the population, discourage
            cooperation, influence public opinion, decrease government
            effectiveness, gain media attention, or simply to exact revenge.

            “sic” is a way of quoting material that contains errors without correcting the error, in which case it would no longer be a quotation, or running the risk of having it assumed that one is being sloppy oneself. It’s not my concern whether you like its use or not.

          • Judahlevi

            It doesn’t matter if it is a “terrorist” action, an assassination, bombing, or military strike – they can be the root cause of any war.

            Bush did not start the war in Afghanistan, it was caused by the terror acts of 9-11 and the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans.

            It is disingenuous to argue that one does not relate to the other. Only a child would take that position.

          • hiernonymous

            “It is disingenuous to argue that one does not relate to the other. Only a child would take that position.”

            And, yet again, it’s a good thing that nobody took that position.

            Nobody suggested that the two acts weren’t related. The question is much more mechanical than you’re implying. At issue isn’t whether the U.S. had a legitimate casus belli – it clearly did – but simply determining at what point the war began. On Sep 12, 2001, we were not at war with the Taliban. As we determined who was responsible for the attacks, we issued an ultimatum to the Taliban. Had they cooperated, they need never have been at war with the U.S. at all. The Taliban, however, chose not to cooperate, and the U.S. made the decision to go to war with them.

            It’s not clear why you so badly want to avoid confronting the fact that we started the war against the Taliban. We were perfectly justified in doing so. There’s nothing in that narrative that makes the U.S. the bad guy, if that’s what you’re worried about.

          • J.B.

            America has never been at war with Afghanistan. You’re delusional.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        “I didn’t get that impression while I was still on active service under him.”

        DELTA/2/501/101st 1968-69. Battaltion Commander’s name was Lt. Col. German. And you, sir?

        • hiernonymous

          And me what? I retired from the Army in 2009 after 23+ years commissioned service. Is that what you wanted to know?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I gave you a specific unit designation, and provided a battalion officer’s name. This was the kind of information I was interested in.

            Until you provide some specific information, I find your claim dubious …

          • hiernonymous

            Do I understand you correctly, that you believe that by writing a unit designation, a rank, and a last name, that you’ve established that you served in that unit?

            Don’t be silly. Short of publishing our DD214s, there’s no verifying such information.

            Until you provide some specific information, I find your claim dubious …

            And?

          • truebearing

            Your credibility is in the Obama zone, and you’re both headed south.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Get off it, H. I saw your comment, above, and wrote my unit and Battalion commander’s name in about ten seconds. We don’t need 214s.

            You must have some specific remembrance of a unit you served in, after 23 years of service. I wish that I had not been wounded, and could have served as long as you. I wanted a career out of the Army. Our family is Army, all the way …

            I didn’t really mean that I don’t believe you served. It was strange that you wouldn’t talk about your service, for which you have my thanks.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s not that I won’t talk about my service. Rather, I have a few guidelines. One of the first is that it is pointless into being goaded into revealing details of one’s personal life in order to establish bona fides. It’s a losing game, in which one risks providing personally identifiable data in exchange for the certainty that the stranger demanding the data will profess to be unconvinced, anyway. Second, I don’t argue from authority; I usually bring up my background when it is germane, to explain how I know something or why I have experience in a particular place or field. I don’t expect such information to replace the need for sound argument and supporting facts.

            Since we’re not playing either game now, my first tour of duty was in Germany, and it was unusually long. Our tours are normally 3 years, but just as I was due to PCS, DESERT SHIELD began and the Army was put on stop-loss, ending all PCS and ETS. I ended up going from 2LT to CPT in the same battalion, and going through three battalion commanders. The first was detached, marginally competent, and abused her subordinates, and was eventually cashiered out of the Army for TDY fraud as a full bull. The second was sharp and really turned the battalion around. The third was a strange bird – he was an absolutely fascinating and charismatic speaker, and as long as his lips were moving, you loved the guy, even if you hated him. But he didn’t walk the walk. While I was in that unit, I started out as a commo platoon leader in HHC for a year, then became an A/S3. Spent 6 months deployed to Honduras at Palmerola, then back to my unit for a stint as a platoon leader in one of the line companies. Got promoted to captain and became opso of the technical control element, then took over as chief when the major who ran the shop got shipped to Saudi to support DS/DS. Then followed 18 more years, 7 more PCS’s, a couple more promotions, many more deployments, and here I am. Regards.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I understand your reticence to reveal identifiable details about your life (indeed, that one of the chief attractions of the internet … anonymity). This is why I never identify the university that I taught in (it’s somewhere between San Diego and Maine).

            It’s just that one of the best times of my life … a time when I could directly affect the future of my nation … was in Vietnam. As you probably understand, it was simultaneously one of the worst times of my life.

            Thanks for your response, and if you ever wish to talk about “the day”, without revealing who you are, you have someone who understands, on this website.

            Thanks for your service.

          • J.B.

            Active service under Obama? Are you Reggie Love?

            Oh,wait. At least he was on top.

      • truebearing

        “On what do you base this assertion? Do you have a source..”

        Daniel’s article quite thoroughly covered Obama’s loss of popularity with the Afghans. Maybe you should read the article BEFORE commenting.

        “Oh, you noticed that, did you? Perhaps you also noticed that the previous administration started a war in Afghanistan, then promptly lost interest and allowed the Taliban to recover while the U.S. Shifted its focus to its elective war two countries to the west? Your critique seems curiously selective.”

        As nomoretraitors so accurately pointed out, Bush didn’t start a war. He prosecuted a war against those who started the war by murdering 3000 Americans. I guess trivial details like that are easy to miss for someone who alleges a 23 year career in Army intelligence. I believe it is your critique that is proving to be selective.

        Bush didn’t allow the Taliban to recover. They fled Afghanistan and hid in Pakistan. There was only so much we could do. At least Bush didn’t impose suicidal ROE on the troops, like Obama did.

        You really took the low road on that portion of your comment. Well done.

        “I didn’t get that impression while I was still on active service under him.”

        is that right? Well, judging from my experience with your impressions, you tend to be singularly obtuse when ideology is involved and dishonest as well, such as in your intentional ignorance of the reason Bush attacked the Taliban in the beginning of your comment.

        • hiernonymous

          Daniel’s article quite thoroughly covered Obama’s loss of popularity
          with the Afghans. Maybe you should read the article BEFORE commenting.

          Daniel doesn’t source his assertions, either. Nor does he assert that Afghans see Obama as a traitor.

          As nomoretraitors so accurately pointed out, Bush didn’t start a war. He
          prosecuted a war against those who started the war by murdering 3000
          Americans. I guess trivial details like that are easy to miss for
          someone who alleges a 23 year career in Army intelligence. I believe it
          is your critique that is proving to be selective.

          9/11 was carried out by al Qa’ida. The Afghan war was prosecuted against the Taliban. Since you seem to be having trouble keeping up with the parts of the conversation that have already occurred, I’ll remind you: the Bush administration issued an ultimatum to the Taliban; the Taliban declined to fully comply, asking bin Ladin to leave the country but refusing to hand him over until the U.S. provided evidence of his complicity in the attacks. The U.S. then launched OEF.

          Bush didn’t allow the Taliban to recover.

          Wrong. The lion’s share of military assets were shifted to Iraq and remained there for as long as the Iraq war was ongoing. U.S. military commitment to Afghanistan was minimal for most of the first decade of the war. Troop strengths in Iraq were consistently between 120,000 and 160,000 while troops in Afghanistan didn’t reach 40,000 until Obama took office. Iraq received the personnel, the resources, the attention, the command and communications structure, and Afghanistan received just enough to keep it more or less pacified.

          …you tend to be singularly obtuse when ideology is involved and dishonest as well.

          Of the two of us, you are the only one who has demonstrably lied about anything – namely, your comments on the Joint Chiefs. I notice you haven’t had the integrity to address that, either, but I wasn’t really expecting you to.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Wrong.

            Bush shifted military assets to Iraq because Al Qaeda in Afghanistan had been defeated.

            Your boy knew that was the case and has spent six years lying about redirecting to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda.

            Meanwhile Al Qaeda has taken over parts of Iraq.

            “The Taliban declined to fully comply, asking bin Ladin to leave the country but refusing to hand him over until the U.S. provided evidence of his complicity in the attacks. The U.S. then launched OEF.”

            Carefully. You’re not supposed to announce that you’re a 9/11 Truther. It undermines your credibility.

          • hiernonymous

            “Carefully. You’re not supposed to announce that you’re a 9/11 Truther.”

            Good thing I announced no such thing, then. I would tell you that such innuendo is beneath you, but we both know that’s not so.

            Bush shifted military assets to Iraq because Al Qaeda in Afghanistan had been defeated.

            But the Taliban had not. That was rather the point.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            ” I would tell you that such innuendo is beneath you,

            Maybe you shouldn’t engage in Scheuersque Truther innuendo then.

            The Taliban were never the main objective. They were only a nation building concern.

            The main concern was international terrorist groups and their state sponsors.

          • hiernonymous

            “Maybe you shouldn’t engage in Scheuersque Truther innuendo then.”

            It seems that innuendo is so ingrained into your thinking that you see it where it doesn’t exist. Let me help you read the original post intelligently.

            Noting that the Taliban demanded evidence of OBL’s complicity before handing him over is a historical fact. Relating it does not suggest that OBL was innocent, or that the Taliban was right or wrong to do so. It simply establishes that the U.S. issued an ultimatum and that the Taliban countered with a demand of its own. It’s quite likely that the Taliban knew or suspected OBL’s complicity, and they were either playing for time or hoping to invoke sovereignty, as had been done in the past. It doesn’t matter. What is relevant is that between 9/11 and the war, there was a period of international tension marked by ultimatums, stalling, partial acceptance, and rejection that ultimately led to war.

            Remarkably similar to 1914, and markedly dissimilar to both1939 and 1941.

          • reader

            I think that if Taliban REALLY asked OBL to leave the country, he would – with the lightening speed. Did you just talk about insulting people’s intelligence?

          • truebearing

            ” Did you just talk about insulting people’s intelligence?”

            He is using his own comments to provide an example.

          • Drakken

            He has islamist leanings and is an arabist at heart, maybe, but I am not certain, may have gone a tad native.

          • hiernonymous

            “I think that if Taliban REALLY asked OBL to leave the country, he would …”

            Refresh my memory. In what country was he found and killed?

          • J.B.

            He was killed in Pakistan after Al Qaeda and the Taliban ratted him out. After Obama tried to extradite him for a show trial.

            Now Obama is honoring his memory.

          • hiernonymous

            “He was killed in Pakistan”

            Bravo.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Which was the country behind the Taliban.

          • J.B.

            Killed in a house owned by the Taliban and their Pakistani ISI paymasters.

            Dweebtroll.

          • Americana

            Osama bin Laden paid for that compound to be built. It may have been under another man’s name but it was his purchase and it was his choice of architectural planning for the defense and the ability to have gardens and animal quarters inside to make it as self-sufficient as possible. What was funny about the house was that he built it far outside Abbottobad’s city limits but then as the city built out, he was suddenly in the suburbs..

          • Americana

            Wait a minute, since when did al Qaida and the Taliban rat Osama bin Laden out? I thought the CIA did a stellar 10-year job of tracking him down through all sorts of ingenious insights and strategic intelligence gathering. I also thought the mission was always meant to be an assassination mission and intelligence-gathering mission. There was originally talk of bringing him to trial right after 9/11 and then the whole business of capturing him dragged on and when they finally cornered him, killing him seemed the best solution.

          • J.B.

            Osama had become a liability and embarrassment for Al Qaeda. One of his nobody nebbish “wives” was ordered to betray him. As if some illiterate piece of chattel in a burka could contact the relevant CIA personnel on her own. Hilarious. (No wonder muzzies enslave women. They cant satisfy ‘em with a high hard one the way Aricans do.) (‘~’
            Obama wanted his soul tema mate Osama taken alive for a show trial and political accolades, but Seal Team six OBVIOUSLY chose to do the world a favor and executed him on the spot. Seal Team Six died later under highly suspicious circumstances – suspicious for that islamophiliac traitor Obama.

            So how is your terminal AIDS coming slong? Any pain in your keister?

          • Americana

            I think I’ve got to call another Just Bullshite here on this post of yours cuz it’s full of it. Osama bin Laden was still actively plotting different terrorist acts of which they found much evidence in the Abbottobad house. True, he was sidelined as other than an inspirational commander but he was by no means an embarrassment. Are you kidding me? You must not keep an ear to the ground. The kill mission was a KNOWN THING before SEAL Team Six left for the mission. That’s why they took multiple DNA samples from his body because the plan to dump him in the ocean within 24 hours of his death meant that there’d be no American style post-mortem.

            SEAL Team Six died because the Army took a very calculated risk and they didn’t send another armed helicopter for cover. during a mission They had 30 men in one chopper and someone on the ground had a missile. Just as w/Benghazi, mistakes cost lives. Rest in peace. They did something for the U.S. that was long overdue.

          • reader

            Are you trying to imply that he left under Taliban’s duress or, perhaps, it was the US military that he fled from? You’re really are insulting people’s intelligence – even if you’re dumb enough to believe your own insinuations.

          • truebearing

            The thread isn’t about the differences between what precipitated WWI and WWII. It is about Obama’s abject failure in Afghanistan. There isn’t any doubt about the cause of the war in Afghanistan and there never will be, despite the most fevered efforts of obscurantists like yourself.

            Pointing out the differences between the World Wars and the similarities between WWI and Afganistan is your typical tactic of hijacking the thread in a direction where you can quibble out a “victory.” Well, give it up. You haven’t. WWI is not that similar to Afghanistan, unless you can show that the Taliban was blameless in harboring Al Queda, providing them a place to train and train with them, and facilitating their terroristic agenda in general. As you said:

            “Note that the similarities run even deeper – in both cases, the ultimatums were presented, not to the authors of the initial terror attacks, but to states that supported the perpetrators but were blameless in the actual attacks.”

            You just stated that the Taliban was blameless in the attack on 9/11. Now prove it, TrutherBoy. You just refuted yourself, and everything you have been babbling about. You have just proven Greenfield correct. Thanks for not knowing when to shut up.

          • hiernonymous

            You seem to have reached that point where ill will prevents you from reading intelligently.

            The Taliban, as far as we know, had nothing to do with 9/11.

            Nothing about that statement implies that there was no legitimate grievance with the Taliban, or that the war against them was unjust. They obviously harbored OBL, and that alone arguably justified the war. Harboring OBL did not make them part of the 9/11 plot.

            “WWI is not that similar to Afghanistan, unless you can show that the Taliban was blameless in harboring Al Queda…”

            Why? Do you suggest that Serbia was blameless in the matter of the Black Hand?

            (And who is “Al Queda?”)

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “Harboring OBL did not make them part of the 9/11 plot.”

            Actually yes it does.

            If France harbors a terrorist group that keeps blowing up American targets, it’s part of a plot to attack America.

          • hiernonymous

            Actually, it’s not. Once France has been shown evidence that the group it harbors has committed crimes, and it continues to shelter that group, it becomes a legitimate target of retaliation. But simply allowing the group to exist in one’s country does not demonstrate involvement in or knowledge of that group’s activities.

            It was not any alleged complicity on the part of the Taliban pre-9/11 that put it in our crosshairs. It was their refusal to take action against AQ afterward that became our casus belli.

          • truebearing

            When you’re in a hole, maybe it’s time to put down the shovel.

            “Actually, it’s not. Once France has been shown evidence that the group it harbors has committed crimes, and it continues to shelter that group, it becomes a legitimate target of retaliation.”

            You seem to have conveniently forgotten that the Taliban had refused to prosecute or extradite Bin Laden to the United States, after US courts indicted him for the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. That means we had evidence and the Taliban refused to cooperate, choosing instead to continue to harbor a known terrorist mastermind.

            This makes you wrong on all counts, so be a man, with a vestige of integrity, and admit it. I won’t be holding my breath, though. There is no reason or historical evidence that suggests you will admit being wrong, or anything less than perfect, plus, holding one’s breath is difficult when laughing.

          • hiernonymous

            You’re still flailing.

            “When you’re in a hole, maybe it’s time to put down the shovel.”

            That’s always good advice.

            Let’s look at your argument. First, you note that OBL had been indicted by U.S. courts. That’s not a conviction, so by law, we’re dealing with someone who is wanted for trial, not someone who has been convicted.

            But let’s not quibble. OBL was a terrorist, we had evidence that he was involved in the embassy attacks. So what does this mean in terms of our discussion?

            Itt means that Afghanistan is a legitimate target of retaliation – and, in fact, the U.S. did retaliate, by means of missile strikes. We’ve already established that. It does not mean that the Taliban was complicit in 9/11, or was even aware of that plot.

            If you care to argue that OBL’s indictment for the African embassy bombings demonstrates Taliban prior knowledge of 9/11, I’m interested in your logic.

            “This makes you wrong on all counts…”

            Except, of course, that it doesn’t.

          • truebearing

            “You’re still flailing.”

            Not at all. You’re failing, and you know it, but aren’t honest enough to admit it, not that I expected you to.

            “Let’s look at your argument. First, you note that OBL had been indicted by U.S. courts. That’s not a conviction, so by law, we’re dealing with someone who is wanted for trial, not someone who has been convicted. ”

            An indictment means there is evidence, and you said, in your last attempt to comment to Daniel:

            “Once France has been shown evidence that the group it harbors has committed crimes, and it continues to shelter that group, it becomes a legitimate target of retaliation.”

            You have abandoned your argument because you were losing. You said evidence was necessary to establish complicity. The 1998 bombings and indictment provide that evidence. Now you’re weaseling out of your argument because once again, you have chosen to defend something that is undefendable.

            “It was not any alleged complicity on the part of the Taliban pre-9/11 that put it in our crosshairs. It was their refusal to take action against AQ afterward that became our casus belli.”

            Hogwash. We knew that the Taliban was fully aware that they were harboring Islamist terrorists — birds of a feather. The Taliban knew Bin Laden was bent on attacking the US. The Taliban was complicit in the same way someone who continues to hide a murder suspect, even after the police have come to his door to investigate previous murders that are attributed to the fugitive he’s hiding.

            You have no honesty, integrity, or decency. Your elevation of yourself over truth is an indictment of you.

          • Americana

            The last two sentences are histrionics at their finest! He’s pretty much just a stickler for the facts. Plain and simple. Just the facts, man! If you can establish your facts, you’re allowed to venture off into reasonable assertions based on those facts. If you don’t get to first base by providing facts, you don’t get to take second base or third base and certainly not home plate just by shooting your mouth off w/wild assertions just because you feel like you’re running like the wind that day.

          • truebearing

            Why, it’s unfair Dull-cinea, trying to win an argument on the back of hiernonymouses’ sophistry… incoherently, as usual.

          • Americana

            It’s a great polysyllabic word and it always sounds really cool to level that charge at someone. Nonetheless, if someone correctly interprets my writing in the thread where you complain about it, it obviates the need for me to explain whatever it is you’re complaining about to you. As for hieronymous, he’s just a stickler for facts. That’s all. It’s the trait of a college professor as well as someone who did intelligence work.

          • hiernonymous

            “You have abandoned your argument…”

            I did? News to me.

            “The 1998 bombings and indictment provide that evidence.”

            Not of anything to do with 9/11.

            Afghanistan was a legitimate target of retaliation for the embassy attacks. It was, in fact, subjected to such retaliation.

            The Taliban was also a legitimate target of retaliation for refusing to take action against OBL in the wake of 9/11. That doesn’t mean that the Taliban participated in 9/11. Not sure why that’s so hard for you to follow.

            “Hogwash. We knew that the Taliban was fully aware that they were harboring Islamist terrorists — birds of a feather. The Taliban knew Bin Laden was bent on attacking the US. The Taliban was complicit in the same way someone who continues to hide a murder suspect…”

            Now think about what you just said. If someone harbors a fugitive, we charge them with harboring a fugitive. They don’t become guilty of all the crimes the fugitive committed.

            “You have no honesty, integrity, or decency. Your elevation of yourself over truth is an indictment of you.”

            This is an example of what I was talking about when I noted that you’re letting your emotions lead you to post things that are unintelligent.

          • .

            “That doesn’t mean that the Taliban participated in 9/11. ”
            Providing a safe refuge for Al Qaeda to train, to plot and as a depot is not indirectly participating in 9/11?

          • hiernonymous

            Ah, you’ve introduced the term “indirectly” into the phrase. What, exactly, do you mean by it?

          • truebearing

            Stop trying to weasel out of your public display of dishonesty and stupidity. Accept the truth and admit you were wrong.

          • hiernonymous

            Did you want to answer the question, or were you simply posting to demonstrate your lack of self-control?

          • truebearing

            The Taliban was an essential, inseparable component of the 9/11 plot. Without a base — an especially remote safe haven — Bin Laden wouldn’t have been able to operate. Once again, you put winning a point above your credibility as a former military intelligence officer. No sane or remotely intelligent person would argue that a secure base of operation is unessential, nor would they parse and quibble over the complicity of the host in the terrorist activity. The Taliban knew Bin Laden’s cause and intent.

            And then there is this admission from you that further shows your tendency to shift the goal posts:

            “It’s quite likely that the Taliban knew or suspected OBL’s complicity, and they were either playing for time”

            They knew and you know they knew. You just aren’t honest in the least. It is more important for you to win at quibbling.

          • hiernonymous

            “The Taliban was an essential, inseparable component of the 9/11 plot. Without a base — an especially remote safe haven — Bin Laden wouldn’t have been able to operate.”

            By that standard, the lumberjack who felled the tree that was used to make the table on which the plans were drawn was ‘complicit.’ Providing a place to live and being involved in the planning of the terror plot are different things. Stop trying to pretend that they aren’t.

            “It’s quite likely that the Taliban knew or suspected OBL’s complicity, and they were either playing for time”

            They knew and you know they knew.

            The context of that comment was the Taliban response to the U.S. ultimatum. 9/11 had already occurred, and it’s likely that the Taliban either suspected or actually knew that OBL had a hand in it. That doesn’t imply that they knew beforehand.

            “You just aren’t honest in the least. It is more important for you to win at quibbling. What is it that keeps leading you to post things that are unintelligent and dishonest?”

            You’re letting those emotions talk again.

          • truebearing

            “You seem to have reached that point where ill will prevents you from reading intelligently.”

            Ah, the snake was wounded. Time to bite back, eh, TrutherBoy?

            “The Taliban, as far as we know, had nothing to do with 9/11.”

            “Harboring OBL did not make them part of the 9/11 plot.”

            Excuse me while I laugh at your writhing. You are a ridiculous man. You have trapped yourself in a foolish way. Now would be a good time to admit you made an error, before you make even more defending this utter stupidity.
            Where did your logic go? Where is your 23 years of military intelligence experience? If you made these same assertions in front of your CO, he’d order you to see the Base psychiatrist.

            So, back to your peculiar claims. Are you telling me that providing a safe haven, protection, food, etc. is not an irreplaceable necessity for mounting a terror attack against the most powerful nation on earth? How do you propose to separate them? They had to train, plan, and coordinate from somewhere. Clearly, the Taliban knew what they were doing, since they trained together and fought together. Certainly no government just lets any paramilitary terrorist organization set up shop in their country without asking some questions and giving their blessing. Add to that the fact that the Taliban is notoriously intolerant. That also tends to work against your absurd argument.

            Thanks for the laugh. it was a good one. I’ll just let you continue on with your War on Common Sense. And don’t let me goad you into anymore of these utterly ridiculous arguments. You’ve done enough for one day.

          • Americana

            We’ve never discovered ANY EVIDENCE that he Taliban and al Qaeda collaborated in any way on the 9/11 plot. We haven’t found anything that says the Taliban participated as equal partners w/the al Qaeda bin Laden boys in the enormous pile of personal papers the SEAL team recovered from Osama bin Laden’s Abbotobad compound nor has bin Laden made any pronouncements that the Taliban shared in the jihadist glory attached to 9/11. The fact Osama bin Laden ended up there in the tribal region after serving in the Afghanistan jihad against the Russians is simply a statement of fact, not of collusion. The Taliban saw Osama bin Laden as a jihadi fighter just like them and as such, having SERVED in THEIR JIHAD, he was entitled to their hospitality and protection. Unfortunately for us.

            (TB) Clearly, the Taliban knew what they were doing, since they trained together and fought together.
            (Amer.) >>>> The Taliban might have known he was up to something but considering no advance information leaked as to 9/11 specifics, it’s unlikely that bin Laden wouldn’t have kept OPERATIONAL SECURITY under the tightest wraps possible. He was there for purposes of a secure, unassailable jihadi Bed and Breakfast spot, that’s all.

            (TB) Certainly no government just lets any paramilitary terrorist organization set up shop in their country without asking some questions and giving their blessing.
            (Amer.)>>>> Certainly no government that’s ACTUALLY IN CHARGE OF its full sovereign territory lets jihadi terrorists set up shop, but since the Afghan government has never had full control and governance over the tribal areas, your making a fool’s argument.

            (TB) Add to that the fact that the Taliban is notoriously intolerant. That also tends to work against your absurd argument.

            (Amer.)>>>> The Taliban might be intolerant, but they’re going to demonstrate GRATITUDE to a jihadi who fought in their cause and who paid for much of their armaments. What’s so absurd about that?

          • truebearing

            The Taliban provided a training ground and safe haven for Al Qaeda. They were accessories to the mass murder of 3000 Americans. They refused to turn over Bin Laden and his minions after 9/11, and after he was indicted by the US federal court in 1998 for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. TheTaliban was obviously shielding and enabling an enemy to the US, and no amount of lame rationalizing will erase that rather obvious fact.

            I suppose you will next argue that financial supporters of Al Qaeda aren’t responsible either, or Iran, where the 9/11 terrorists were trained in explosives. No one is ever responsible but the US in your sick view.

          • Americana

            Afghanistan is in the tricky position of not being truly sovereign over the tribal areas. It’s as if we were attacking Mexico because of their failure to control the cartel activity.

            There are several reasons why they might not have chosen to turn him over. and most of them are based on Muslim loyalties and distrust of the U.S. By citing them don’t think I’m backing any of these choices: 1) he was executing a jihad against the U.S.; 2) the Taliban would naturally be suspicious of American evidence; 3) they’d likely prefer for him to face a jirga right in Afghanistan and wouldn’t necessarily agree about him needing to face U.S. law.

          • Drakken

            That is the problem with your thinking right there, (face US Law), when you enact, enable and direct an act of war, and that is exactly what jihad/terrorism is, you don’t offer US jurisprudence, you go directly to the military solution.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “It seems that innuendo is so ingrained into your thinking that you see it where it doesn’t exist.”

            And yet you were just now accusing me of innuendo. Perhaps it’s ingrained into your thinking after all.

            Meanwhile your thesis is that the US assault on terrorist guerrillas in one of the most backward parts of the world is just like WW1.

            History is not your strong suit.

          • hiernonymous

            “Meanwhile your thesis is that the US assault on terrorist guerrillas in one of the most backward parts of the world is just like WW1.”

            Why, no. Are you being a bit dim or just disingenuous? The topic under discussion was establishing the point at which a war is considered to have begun. We turn to past wars for analogous situations for precedent. WWI is one of the most obvious cases in which an act of terror sparked a war, so examining it is useful.

            As you should- and probably do – well understand, analogies are useful for their similarities, and are legitimately evaluated on the strength of the claimed similarities. It’s not clear how your characterization of Afghanistan as “one of the most backward parts of the world” is actually a critique of the analogy.

            Try to stay focused. You apparently contend that the war between the U.S. and the Taliban began on 9/11. It actually began on 7 October, and the example of WWI is instructive in helping you see why.

            It would be perfectly relevant for you to submit other wars that were provoked by an act of terror for consideration. It’s interesting that you thought Gleiwitz filled that bill, if you did.

          • truebearing

            “Daniel doesn’t source his assertions, either. Nor does he assert that Afghans see Obama as a traitor.”

            No, Daniel did not assert that the Afghans see Obama as a traitor, but they have clearly seen his duplicity in his dealings with Karzai and his own troops. They can clearly see he deserts his own troops, and nation. They can clearly see his handing over of the Taliban Five is aiding and abetting the enemy, so I’m comfortable with the assumption that they can see Obama for who he is.

            “9/11 was carried out by al Qa’ida. The Afghan war was prosecuted largely against the Taliban. Since you seem to be having trouble keeping up with the parts of the conversation that have already occurred, I’ll remind you: the Bush administration issued an ultimatum to the Taliban; the Taliban declined to fully comply, asking bin Ladin to leave the country but refusing to hand him over until the U.S. provided evidence of his complicity in the attacks. The U.S. then launched OEF.”

            In all of that blather, you failed to admit you intentionally omitted the reason we went to war with Ahghanistan, again. Al Queda was given aid and sanctuary by the Taliban because they share the same Islamist beliefs. They were an accessory to the murder of 3000 Americans. I know that doesn’t bother you, but it is more than enough reason to attack and destroy a country.

            “Wrong. The lion’s share of military assets were shifted to Iraq and remained there for as long as the Iraq war was ongoing. U.S. military commitment to Afghanistan was minimal for most of the first decade of the war. Troop strengths in Iraq were consistently between 120,000 and 160,000 while troops in Afghanistan didn’t reach 40,000 until Obama took office. Iraq received the personnel, the resources, the attention, the command and communications structure, and Afghanistan received just enough to keep it more or less pacified.”

            Wrong. Al Queda was defeated and hiding in Waziristan, and probably Iran. Now you have a problem with your idiotic argument. You argue that the Taliban didn’t attack us, but then insist we should have kept overwhelming force in Afghanistan to go after them. Obama has said similar things, as Daniel pointed out. If the Taliban aren’t our enemy, and Al Queda was defeated, as Obama has stated and you have agreed with, then why did the war in Afghanistan continue to be the “good” war?

            “Of the two of us, you are the only one who has demonstrably lied about anything – namely, your comments on the Joint Chiefs. I notice you haven’t had the integrity to address that, either, but I wasn’t really expecting you to.”

            What are you whining about now, and why are you still harping on your ridiculous defense of Americana’s stupid theory that the Joint Chiefs took the responsibility for Benghazi? Haven’t you lost that debate enough times already? I addressed your ridiculous defense of Americana enough times for even you to understand. If you think I have the time or interest in answering each one of your desperate attempts to salvage a win out of a clear loss, you’re nuts. The Joint Chiefs can’t take responsibility for decisions that have to be made by the CIC.

          • hiernonymous

            “…so I’m comfortable with the assumption that they can see Obama for who he is.”

            I gave no doubt that you are comfortable with it, but that isn’t setting the bar very high. Nor is it either sourcing or support.

            “In all of that blather, you failed to admit you intentionally omitted the reason we went to war with Ahghanistan, again. ”

            Thank you. At issue was not why we went to war with Afghanistan, but the fact that we did so. Since you now understand that we went to war with Afghanistan, that is all cleared up.

            ” You argue that the Taliban didn’t attack us, but then insist we should have kept overwhelming force in Afghanistan to go after them.”

            It’s interesting that you think those statements conflict. The Taliban didn’t attack us. That doesn’t mean that we were not justified in going to war with them – you supplied that bit of illogic yourself.

            “If the Taliban aren’t our enemy, and Al Queda was defeated, as Obama has stated more than once,and you have agreed with,”

            Who said that the Taliban are not our enemy? (And just who is “al Queda?”). Of course the Taliban are our enemy – we’re fighting them for control of Afghanistan.

            “The Joint Chiefs can’t take responsibility for decisions that have to be made by the CIC.”

            As I never argued that they can, and you know this, the only remaining question is – what audience are you lying to? Me? I know better. Yourself? You know better, too. Your integrity comes cheap. I’ve learned something about you in this exchange worth knowing.

          • J.B.

            Obama is aiding the Taliban. You cant change the subject, trolltard.

            Say hello to Dave Brat. He is the Tea Party ascendant. You lefties are on the way out. America hates the Obamaburo. Even young punks call him a racist. Young. douchetards trained from birth in leftism. They hate it. They hate him. They hate you. The Obamanation is done for.

            Hahahahahaha!

          • hiernonymous

            Obama is aiding the Taliban. You cant change the subject, trolltard.

            Say hello to Dave Brat. He is the Tea Party ascendant.

            I believe you just changed the subject. Didn’t you just say we couldn’t do that?

    • The March Hare

      Funny, I’ve been thinking about the tar baby story for some time now. Then too, it’s a story close to my heart. It fits.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Good comment. I waited for years for Obama to fight “the good war”, and he never did (even with his so-called “surge”). Just another of his lies …

    • WhiteHunter

      “His definition of victory is crushing his political opponents at home, not winning military conflicts abroad.”

      Absolutely correct and on target! No one has ever said it better, or even as well. Thank you, friend.

      • truebearing

        Thanks. In all fairness, I should point out that others have said the same thing, but it bears repeating.

      • hiernonymous

        “We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means.”

        von Clausewitz, 1832

        • truebearing

          I liked mine better.

          • Americana

            Aren’t you the guy calling everyone out for narcissism? (DELETED)

        • Drakken

          Von Clausewitz was right then and he is right today.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s a classic, no doubt about it.

    • sprinklerman

      “The Taliban had no respect for Bergdahl. The Afghans in general have no respect for Obama.”

      Terrorists as a general rule only respect strength. Physical as well as mental. Obama has shown neither.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      A-stan was the good war only until he could get Americans to turn on it just like Iraq. The left never believed it was the good war.

      They were protesting against it while Ground Zero was still being searched for survivors and it hadn’t actually begun.

      I saw them doing it.

  • Ellman48

    “Obama had claimed that withdrawing from Iraq would force the Iraqis to
    work out their differences. It didn’t work in Iraq. By putting clear
    deadlines on the US presence in Afghanistan he hoped to pressure the
    Afghan government into becoming desperate enough to cut a deal with the
    Taliban. Instead he only made the Taliban aware that they had no reason
    to cut a deal because they could wait him out.”

    What can be more hypocritical and inconsistent than claiming a “war on women” in the US by Republicans while allowing the misogynistic Taliban to return to power? How does ‘unequal pay’ even remotely compare to denial of education and cruel and corporeal punishment for not observing inhuman dress codes?

    The liberal, progressive, Democratic mindset is obtuse and perverted, if not completely insane. The person who suffers from insanity considers himself perfectly normal. It’s the rest of us who, to him, seem abnormal.

    One of us is right and the other wrong. One of us will eventually win and the other will lose. Right now it’s difficult to tell which way the struggle will end.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It’s important to distinguish between practical lefty governance and its mob-rallying propaganda. One has little to do with the other.

    • Gasserino

      Yes, anyone who happens to disagree with you on some political issues is clearly insane. Please don’t concern yourself with how insane that statement is.

      • Judahlevi

        And your statements are more sane?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Since he managed to invalidate his own critique in the next sentence…

  • Gamal

    I think part of the reason for Obama’s behavior is because he lost Afghanistan. His rules of engagement paralyzed the U.S. army and made it lose. So he needs to make surrender to enemies palatable and the way to do that is to say that they are not the enemy. I also think he believes the way to win is to make friends with the Muslims. He may really believe that 95% of the Taliban are reasonable, though how anyone could believe such nonsense is hard to comprehend. Maybe because it fits the leftists belief that we are bad and they are good so we don’t have to fight or pay for a military and instead can spend the money on our left wing agenda.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The rules of engagement were a disaster, but they were meant to win hearts and minds, not battles. I wrote about it in some detail in the Great Betrayal pamphlet.

      Obama was never out to win in A-stan.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Obama Lies. That’s all there is to say.

  • BagLady

    When Bush sent American soldiers off to war it was because he believed that there was a real enemy to fight.”

    and, as footage shows him raising his fist in victory outside the White House, believed it would take just a couple of days.

    He is, was and always will be an idiot.

    • http://americansforpetraeus2012.org JohnnyAngel Advocacy Group

      Watch drinking too much,Ms.lil obaputin

      • BagLady

        JohnnyAngel. I have an African friend call Johny Angel. He’s very successful in fashion. I presume you are not he.

    • Gamal

      Actually Afghanistan and Iraq fell very quickly. He was right about that. He was wrong to believe that he could build democracy in those countries without taking out Iran. He underestimated Islamic radicalism. He believed some of the nonsense that Obama believes. In that regard he was foolish but compared to Obama and the bagladies who voted for Obama Bush was a genius.

    • Gamal

      Obama lost the wars that Bush won. Is that Bush’s fault or Obama’s fault and the fault of the idiots who voted for Obama?

      • Gasserino

        I see you’re taking the “I reject your reality and choose to substitute my own approach?” In what regard did Bush win those wars when his stated goal was to create stable democracies in the middle east? Was either a stable democracy when he left office?

        It’s almost as though the folks who started those wars had little regard for anything enabling themselves and their friends to take a steam-shovel to the largest pile of money on earth?

        • reader

          are you a truther?

          • Gasserino

            Not at all. Those wars were simply the act of turning a crisis into an opportunity.

          • reader

            Isn’t that what you marxists are doing? Emmanuel actually said so.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          “It’s almost as though the folks who started those wars had little regard
          for anything enabling themselves and their friends to take a
          steam-shovel to the largest pile of money on earth?”

          Do you include those Democratic senators who voted for those wars?

          • Gasserino

            That depends, was the senate responsible for justifying the war in Iraq with unconfirmed/nonexistent evidence, for procuring adequate body armor for troops deployed overseas, for preventing $12 billion in cash from evaporating in Iraq, or for handing out no bid contracts to friends of the administration?

            Did they want us to win? Sure, but not before they got a little something nice for themselves and their friends.

            Now please don’t let me stop you from attempting to pin these failures on the current president, you could tell most people around here that Obama is responsible for everything from betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver to injecting Alex Rodriguez with steroids and they’ll fall over themselves to believe you.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Are we talking about Bill Clinton or George Bush here?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs

          • Gasserino

            Darned Youtube, somehow that video cut off before Bill went on to announced that we were invading, would be greeted as liberators and that the war would pay for itself. Oh well, I’m sure it’s there somewhere.

            President Clinton is defending containment, which was working. Sadam was isolated and his regime crumbling. But hey, at least the war in Iraq had been great for Iran, so we’ve got that going for us!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Clinton bombed Iraq. He didn’t invade it, but there was talk of it.

          • trickyblain

            Talk of it? What does that even mean? Who cares if they talked about it if they didn’t, you know, do it?

            Nice to see that your English language ability is evolving, though; just the other week, you claimed that Obama invaded Libya by bombing it.

          • J.B.

            Obama bombed Libya to help Al Qaeda. He refused to bomb Al Qaeda to help an American ambassador, an American citizen and twoNNavy Seal heroes.

            Ask Qaddaffi if he thought Obama invaded Libya. Trolltard scum.

          • Americana

            How would bombing Benghazi have helped those Americans without taking out substantial numbers of CIA operatives on the ground all around the embassy? Never mind what the fallout would have been depending on how many Benghazi residents had been killed in the bombing.

          • Americana

            Big difference between political pressure cooker talk and just bombing some sites. For one thing, it’s a helluva lot cheaper to settle for limited bombing. Plus, there’s also a lot less nation-building to do than after a full-blown invasion where there was heavy bombing to reduce the threats to American troops but it meant that we owed additional billions in infrastructure reparations.

          • Drakken

            Your problem is, you think we need to rebuild a nation if we destroy it. We don’t, especially where a muslim nation is concerned. Bush’s mistake was thinking that you could make a democracy out of a collection of Islamic tribes, you can’t, you need a few Generals to hold it together, look at Iraq now as the prime example.

          • Americana

            If we destroy an INNOCENT Muslim nation, we look pretty bad if we don’t fix what we destroyed. What do you think is going to happen w/all those Muslim refugees? What will they become? More Muslim/Palestinian dominoes to get thrown around on the terrorism chessboard? I’m wondering how your strum und drang solution works from Stage One to Stage 4F. Please enlighten us because I can’t understand your tactical thinking whatsoever.

          • trickyblain

            Missed the part about invading and occupying Iraq so it would turn into a friendly democracy.

            Clinton did follow through with his plan, though. It was called Desert Fox, and many sober-minded analysts point to it as the end of the Iraqi WMD program.

          • J.B.

            You love terrorists and hate America. Just admit it, scumbag. Tertorism snd Osama thrived under Clinton because leftists love tetrorists

        • Gamal

          Oh like America got really rich off of going to war with Iraq. What a liberal inversion of reality. He defeated Saddam’s army and he defeated the Taliban. His goals of creating a Democracy in an Islamic area were doomed to failure but he one the wars. The problem was that his progess was undermined by terrorists supported by Iran and then totally unravelled under Obama whose way of dealing with terrorists is to try and make friends with them.

          • Gasserino

            Of course the country doesn’t make money. War profiteers are out for themselves. Any problems holding conquered territory should have been anticipated, actually they were anticipated the pentagon officials who said we didn’t have near enough troops. The Bush cabal rewarded those high ranking officials with pink slips for daring to contradict the marketing of the war.

            As to befriending terrorists last I checked hellfire missiles aren’t currently counted as terms of endearment. What’s even better is that the Bush family was actually friends with the Bin Ladens. Whereas Obama “friended” Osama curtesy of Seal team 6.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      If Bush is an “idiot”, what does that make SecState Kerry? They attended the same university, and Bush’s gpa was higher than Kerry’s. And he was a “party boy”, and his grades were STILL higher than Kerry’s.

      I’d be willing to bet you admire John Kerry …

    • nomoretraitors

      “raising his fist in victory outside the White House”
      Somewhat less offensive than watching the miserable excuse we have for a commander in chief groveling before the enemy

  • http://americansforpetraeus2012.org JohnnyAngel Advocacy Group

    Pathetic government

  • BagLady

    September 1994 – Pakistan employs the Taliban, a small lawless faction operating under Rabbani to protect their trade convoys.

    1996 – Taliban seizes control of Afghanistan with the help of purloined weapons from the Mujahadeen supplied by the CIA and ISI. Nobody knows nor cares until they blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas.

    The US’ mistake has been underestimating them and concentrating instead on Al Qaeda and their various offshoots. In the meantime, the Afghan factions have allied themselves with the Taliban of Pakistan and swelled their numbers by millions.

    I still maintain that this once very patriotic soldier has been brought home for interrogation rather than the vain hope that a diplomatic solution can be found. He has bad-mouthed the US government and that will not go unpunished.

    The West is 30 years too late and should get out, shut up and move on.

    • American Patriot

      Quit repeating Communist propaganda, you Stalinist/Maoist. The CIA did not fund Al-Qaeda. Why don’t you condemn the Soviet-backed coup in Afghanistan in 1978 and the subsequent invasion in 1979, Turd Bag Lady?

  • Soxtory

    If we have no plans to win, which Obama of course doesn’t, we should get out sooner rather than later! We can always go back now and then to clean them out after future 9/11′s.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    It usually begins with political representation and ends with a takeover.

    The idea is allowing the terrorists to impose their Islamic goals through the political process instead of through armed attacks.

    • Jeff Ludwig

      Would that mean allowing genocide of the Jews (HAMAS), a seoarate Islamic state in Nigeria (Boki Haram) or reinstatement of the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan?
      If we do that, wouldn’t the violence and threat to our friends increase?

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Those Jews and Christians who resist Islamic supremacism, yes.

        • Jeff Ludwig

          Well, Mr. Greenfield, then it certainly is a grim picture portrayed as I said in my original remarks. Thanks for the clarifications. As far as I understand your analyses, then, the present course of our foreign policy is opening itself to permitting Islamic supremacism to hold sway in more and more places. I couldn’t be more dismayed.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            until people wake up, yes

      • Americana

        Yes, these are such significant interconnected jihads that the genocide of the Jews is just going to happen — WHOOOSH!! — just like that, if any of the above happen. This genocide will happen despite the fact that Israel is a member state of NATO. (NOT. <<<<< Better add this: Less anyone misunderstand my point.)

    • Americana

      I wouldn’t have said that there would be total disaster w/political representation for all political parties if the right personalities came to the fore. It’s too bad that Ahmad Shah Massoud isn’t still around because if there were someone like him, it would likely be a feasible process. It’s impossible to maintain a civil war status indefinitely.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    The timetable was meant to pressure the Afghan government into reaching a deal with the Taliban while the US was still there to shore it up.

    • http://onfollowingchrist.wordpress.com Paul B.

      In that case the timetable should have been conveyed very privately to the Afghan government. It must have been very convenient to the Taliban to know almost exactly how long they would have to outlast the Americans.

  • Christopher Riddle

    Obongo is so”Delusional”that he believes that if he doesn’t”Acknowledge”something,it simply Doesn’t Exist!!!

  • Vlad Lenin

    And yet we blather on and on in these forums… lamenting the horrors of President CVNT.

  • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

    WHY SHOULD BO BERGDAHL HATE PRESIDENT OBAMA?

    Click http://www.apollospeaks.com for the answer.

  • Lanna

    Can anyone imagine thinking like Obama does? His hatred for America is his reason for getting up every day.

  • rhondajo3

    How can the Taliban, a terrorist organization, NOT be our enemy? I think then, that we have the enemy in the White House…

    • Daniel Greenfield

      To Obama, the enemy are those who provoke or resist Islamic supremacism.

      e.g. the future will not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam

  • MrUniteUs1

    Do you agree with President Bush’s decision to reject the Taliban’s offer to hand over Osama bin Laden back in 2001?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Have you stopped beating your seven wives?

      • MrUniteUs1

        Way too many wives, I’m Roman Catholic, Again Do you agree with President Bush’s decision to reject the Taliban’s offer to hand over Osama bin Laden back in 2001? Keep mine the Taliban ran the Afghan government at the time..

        • Daniel Greenfield

          So you haven’t stopped beating your seven wives then? Keep in mind, beating one wife is wrong. Beating seven wives is really very wrong. I encourage you to say that you intend to stop.

          • MrUniteUs1

            Yep it’s wrong, and I’m not married. Again Do you agree with President Bush’s decision to reject the
            Taliban’s offer to hand over Osama bin Laden back in 2001? Keep mine the
            Taliban ran the Afghan government at the time..

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If you insist on beating your wives and refusing to stop, I can’t help you.

          • reader

            Your bot got stuck. Operator? Please reboot, or, better yet, power it off.

          • MrUniteUs1

            Actually right winger get stuck, when posed with the question. They obfuscate, or remain silent. Serious matter when you consider the thousands of American lives lost and the trillions spent.

          • reader

            I just want to ask 1 question, if you’re really alive: when you posted your sensational links, did you actually try them?

          • MrUniteUs1

            You mean like this.

            Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden overin Afghanistan.

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

            Just copy and paste the headlines.

          • reader

            Oh, you got it to work! Bravo. You realize that – never mind Guardian Leninist headlines – this article actually describes Taliban’s “offer” AFTER the US military opened up on them, not BEFORE. In other words, it was but a lame ploy to gain a breather, not a real offer, right?

          • MrUniteUs1

            No problem. As anticipated, you whined about the source, which I was posted several articles from the different sources from a single google search.
            You should read the other articles.

          • reader

            No problem? There’s a problem – you completely misrepresented facts in the report. You claim that Bush rejected Taliban’s offer to start the war. In fact, Taliban refused to turn OBL over, and, already under duress, requested that Bush stop the assault in order to resume negotiations. You’re a moron, or a liar, or both. Take your pick.

          • MrUniteUs1

            Reader,
            “Do you agree with President Bush’s decision to reject the Taliban’s offer to hand over Osama bin Laden back in 2001?”
            When did I claim that Bush rejected Taliban’s offer to start the war? I didn’t

          • reader

            It was not THE OFFER, you dumb*ss. It was a demand to stop the bombing to resume negotiations. This is from the very Guardian article that you’re referring to. Can you muster 10 IQ points to get pass the headline? Obviously, not.

          • MrUniteUs1

            You failed to answer the question, and you failed to show where I claimed “that Bush rejected Taliban’s offer to start the war?” Not surprising since I didn’t make that claim.

            “Do you agree with President Bush’s decision to reject the Taliban’s offer to hand over Osama bin Laden back in 2001?”

            Note the word offer in the news reports.
            BBC The US government swiftly rejected Mullah Omar’s offer

            The Washington Post Bush Rejects Taliban Bin Laden Offer.

          • reader

            Yeah, those are the misleading headlines from the marxist media for the drones like you. Forget about reading a column. Did you just read my post. It says – read slowly – “can you muster 10 IQ points to get pass the headline? Obviously not.” Do you think that you’re winning this argument by validating this very post?

          • J.B.

            Massive trollfail, you racist piece of trash.

            Obama loves the Taliban.

        • American Patriot

          The Taliban have never offered Bin Laden, dummy. They refused to hand him over to America after Bush demanded that the Islamist dictatorship hand over the terrorist. Besides, the Taliban were Bin Laden’s collaborators and their oppressive regime needed to be overthrown.

          • MrUniteUs1

            Yes the Taliban did, more than once.

            Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over | World …
            http://www.theguardian.com › News › World news › Afghanistan
            The GuardianOct 14, 2001 – President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States …
            U.S. Rejects New Taliban Offer – ABC News
            abcnews.go.com › International
            ABC NewsU.S. Rejects New Taliban Offer. … President Bush reiterated the position the U.S. has held since fingering bin Laden … “There’s no need to discuss it,” Bush said.
            Bush Rejects Taliban Bin Laden Offer – Washington Post
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/…/aponline135016_000….
            The Washington PostBush Rejects Taliban Bin Laden Offer. By Kathy Gannon Associated Press Writer Sunday, Oct. 14, 2001; 1:50 p.m. EDT. JALALABAD, Afghanistan –– A senior …
            BBC – History – The US refuses to negotiate with the Taliban …
            http://www.bbc.co.uk/…/the_us_refuses_to_negotiate_with_the_taliban
            BBCThe US government swiftly rejected Mullah Omar’s offer. … On 2 October 2001, US President George W Bush again rejected a Taliban appeal for discussions.
            US Refusal of 2001 Taliban Offer Gave bin Laden a Free Pass
            http://www.ipsnews.net/…/us-refusal-of-2001-taliban-offer-g...
            Inter Press ServiceGareth Porter*. WASHINGTON, May 3 2011 (IPS) – When George W. Bush rejected a Taliban offer to have Osama bin Laden tried by a moderate group of Islamic …

          • J.B.

            The guardian and the BBC. why didn’t you quote Al Jazeera, trolltard?

        • Drakken

          The Taliban were never going to hand Bin Laden over to us infidels, but thanks for playing.

          • MrUniteUs1

            You don’t know that for sure, and you weren’t having bombs dropped around you at the time.

          • reader
          • J.B.

            Your trolltarded stupidity is rivaled only by your fake racism. Whitey.

          • Drakken

            Yes, I do know that for sure, and Bush isn’t prez, your hero Obummer is and Obummer could fu** up a wet dream, everything your hero touches turns to sh*t and you know it.

          • MrUniteUs1

            Do you agree with President Bush’s decision to reject the Taliban’s offer to hand over Osama bin Laden back in 2001?

          • pfbonney

            I surely agree with President Bush’s decision to reject the Taliban’s offer to hand over Osama bin Laden back in 2001.

            With the condition of leaving the Taliban intact to plot more attacks?

            Yeah, right. You and all the leftists wish.

        • pfbonney

          You are giving us Catholics a bad name.

          As Bush said on national television right after 9/11, the Global War on Terror would be more than the death of one man, Osama bin Laden. You have a selective memory. We even sent troops to fight the Islamists on the largely Muslim island of Mindanao, Philippines.

          Had we agreed to accept bin Laden, then the whole terrorist infrastructure would have remained intact, minus bin Laden, only.

    • Gislef

      Hand OBL over to who?

      By all accounts, they weren’t offering to hand him over to the U.S., but to a “third country.” in fact, your own source states that:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm

      • MrUniteUs1

        Don’t know. Bush rejected the offer.

        Do you agree with President Bush’s decision to reject the Taliban’s offer to hand over Osama bin Laden back in 2001?

    • pfbonney

      I surely agree with President Bush’s decision to reject the Taliban’s offer to hand over Osama bin Laden back in 2001.

      With the condition of leaving the Taliban intact to plot more attacks?

      Yeah, right. You and all the leftists wish.

  • meanpeoplesuck

    Right wing hypocrisy is great. Chimpy W McHitler lied, couldn’t find Osama bin Laden so he sent other people’s children to Iraq to find WMD, murder arab children and grab the oil. Thousands of other people’s children have died, tens of thousands are maimed, millions of arabs killed. And the RepubliNaziTards are outraged over 6 soldiers who went looking for Bergdahl and 4 people in Benghazi- tragic for the families who lost their loved ones, no debating that.

    But isn’t your perspective slightly warped?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Chimpy W McHitler? 2005 wants its Michael Moore imitator back.

    • UCSPanther

      More vapid stupidity from a mind that is still mired in the mid 2000s…

    • kuffar geoff

      yeah we killed arab children on purpose those gayrabs were only placing women and children in front of them to protect their modesty.

    • Drakken

      Your crying over our enemies losses is really touching, say, why don’t you come on over here and show your remorse, that’ll really show us mean republinazi’s a thing or 5, or are you all talk and lots bitching and crying?

    • J.B.

      Everything you pasted is sheer idiocy and the Tea Party is kicking your leftwing @$$e$ in the current elections.

      Suck it, trolltard.

  • Walter Sieruk

    Obama may times over acted in in defiant resistence to the advice of the US military generals in Afghanistan. Point Five under the subheading “The Five Essentials for Victory” in THE ART OF WAR of Sun Tzu teaches that “He wil win who has the military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.” This “sovereign” Obama should be impeached.

  • Boogie’s Daddy

    “This is the discontinuity that bedevils modern liberal foreign policy which fights wars it does not believe in, rejecting war, while still attempting to use force as an instrument of diplomacy.”

    Also known as – The REAL lesson of Viet Nam !

  • MrUniteUs1

    Down goes Cantor

    • J.B.

      The Tea Party triumphs. Eat it.

    • pfbonney

      Still stinging from 2012, I’m hesitant to get too upbeat about 2014. But this Tea Party victory, along with the Republican victory in the FL-13 race back on 3/11/14 in an election that was the Democrats race to loose, does provide encouragement to me.

      With Cantor’s strategizing ability, he’d be good in the NRCC. Since No one from the Tea Party is going to get to take the reins in there anyway.

  • manchild

    The author is missing a crucial point here. Obama hates the US military and having them killed or injured is just another aspect of weakening the US military. What he does not want to happen is for the US military to become stronger or win the war.

    • Americana

      That’s a rather slow, ineffective and torturous way to go about weakening the military. I’m not even a military strategist and even I can tell that’s a wacko move. It’s not even a good propaganda sell. Since the U.S. military cannot fully win such a war, nor fully stabilize Afghanistan after winning such a war, it’s a moot point. Our single best chance at getting something instated in Afghanistan as a government w/which we might have been able to work as a semi-reliable semi-secular Afghanistan died when Ahdmad Shah Massood died a day or two before 9/11. There was a reason why he was assassinated at that point in time.

      • pfbonney

        No doubt you’re correct, but I like manchild’s attitude.

        And, at best, Obama cries crocodile tears when he learns of US servicemen deaths.

        • Americana

          I don’t think someone is elected to the Presidency without wishing to do right by this country, whichever the party to which he belongs. I don’t believe anyone has ever been elected who’s so callous they don’t cringe at deciding on actions that will cause American casualties. At the very least, you know stepping into the ring as a candidate that whatever happens during your term, your actions will remain within their historical context nudging history along for decades after you’ve left office. Pres. Bush, despite taking the tack he did about declaring war on Iraq, was selecting a course of action he believed was sensible and courageous for the safety of the United States. As Pres. Bush says so painfully when asked about his legacy, “History will judge my Presidency.” We don’t have a clue what will eventually be the outcome of the Arab Spring and to blame the seeming outcomes in the present tense without looking much farther into the future is myopic.

          • Drakken

            You don’t have a clue about the outcome of arab spring, those of us with a discerning eye know better. Obummers clusterfu*k of supporting arab spring will be felt for years, it is obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together you have a choice, the mullahs or the Generals, democracy is fantasy. Obummer and company are doing everything they can to try to get the MB into power and the Generals have said to Obummer, get bent and flipped him the middle finger. The strongman in the ME is always the strong horse, democracy be bloody damned.

          • Americana

            We don’t have a clue what will eventually be the outcome of the Arab Spring and to blame the seeming outcomes in the present tense without looking much farther into the future is myopic. <<<<<< Did I seem to make any claims about having a clue about precisely HOW and HOW LONG the Arab Spring would take to play out in that sentence?

            The Muslim Brotherhood is one organization among many that will play roles in the Middle East for the discernible future. That's whether the U.S. wants or the generals want its presence.

      • MrUniteUs1

        Agreed.

  • pfbonney

    “The Taliban are not our enemies and we don’t want to fight them.”

    Hugo Chavez wasn’t Obama’s enemy either. But both of Obama’s “friends” (the Taliban AND Chavez) saw/see Obama as their sworn enemy. Obama is still considered to be guilty by association with the United States, despite how much Obama despises it (although he does love our money – for himself).

    So who does Obama consider to be an enemy he would be actually willing to destroy? Republican-Americans! (Now THERE’S a “hyphenated American” that Obama doesn’t love. The only one, probably.)

  • ca1

    Obama Lied, Americans in Afghanistan Died
    now that’s a bumper sticker i’d put on my car!

  • USARetired

    Non of this is new information as we have known since the beginning of his ‘illegal’ tenure that he is a devout Muslim with absolutely no love or allegiance to this United States of America! He is not a citizen nor legal resident !

  • 95Theses

    I’m sorta partial to Obama lied! Veterans died!

  • USARetired

    Lying is a social requirement for this Muslim A-Hole! He is a ‘Low Life’ illegal immigrant in this country illegally, and has an agenda called “Destroy America”!

  • http://Orthoman.com/ DockyWocky

    al-Obama always calls the Taliban the Tal-ee-bahn in his Arabic-ilted manner of speech that I find so disgusting.