COMMENTS: 75
What's Really Behind Conservative Pundit George Will's Call for Total Withdrawal From Afghanistan?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.
On Sept. 1, conservative columnist George Will published a seemingly out-of-nowhere, eye-popping op-ed for the Washington Post titled, "Time to Get out of Afghanistan." The piece, which called for "a comprehensively revised policy" involving drastic troop reductions, prompted a battery of rebuttals from right-wing pundits.
But although Will was accused of everything from bald cowardice to faulty arithmetic, his so-called 'defection' was miles from a random maneuver. Rather, it was a calculated provocation -- one sensitive to a political climate in which our prickly discourse on Afghanistan has immense transformative power.
Will, above all else, understood the landscape onto which he was discharging his ideas. About 2 1/2 months before he published his op-ed, members of the House voted down an amendment proposed by Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., that called on the Pentagon to draft an exit strategy for Afghanistan.
Democrats, undoubtedly balancing the political viability of continuing President Barack Obama's "good war" against increasing public distaste for said war, were split on the decision: 131-114 (57 percent to 43 percent). Republican representatives, whose party M.O. has in recent years been characterized (and to some degree nourished) by an indiscriminate hawkishness, did not echo the Dems' recalcitrance. They walloped the proposal 164-7.
There were no real wild cards among the seven GOP defectors. John "Jimmy" Duncan, a self-proclaimed "Robert Taft conservative" from Tennessee, had enunciated his anti-war position rather clearly in 2003, when he compared the invasion of Iraq to "the University of Tennessee football team taking on a second-grade football team -- it's unbelievable."
Then there was Illinois Rep. Timothy V. Johnson, another fiscal conservative, who in 2007 was comparably vocal about his contempt for President George W. Bush's surge: "People believe, and I believe, that we are at a point in history where, unless we have dramatic change in direction, we can wind up being mired and continue to lose large numbers of lives -- American, Iraqi and others -- indefinitely," Johnson said at the time. "I'm not going to be a part of it."
Joining Duncan and Johnson were Howard Coble, R-N.C.; former Democrat Walter Jones Jr., R-N.C.; Dana Rohrbacher, R-Calif.; Ed Whitfield, R-Ky.; and Ron Paul, R-Texas. Their combined vote -- cast when a majority of Americans (57 percent, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll) believed the U.S. should maintain a presence in Afghanistan until the country is stable -- was a self-consciously empty, if prideful, political exercise more akin to a nerd struggling feebly in a bully's headlock than to a real ideological coup. It posed no threat to the Republican paradigm.
No threat, that is, until Will delivered his seething critique of the U.S.'s Afghanistan policy. In his unambiguously titled piece, Will argued that Afghanistan was a country whose political climate has never been stable enough to accommodate the U.S.'s "hold and build" goals.
All of a sudden, conservative critiques of Afghanistan were not only plausible -- they were shoved to the forefront of debate.
"Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more," Will wrote. "That is inconceivable."
"Forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy," he concluded. "America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes and small, potent special forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters."
The piece, broadly viewed as a "bombshell" defection, accomplished two things. It: a) reached millions, and b) obscured a once-unquestioned logical link between Republicanism and hypermilitancy. For these reasons, it was immediately panned by a gaggle of hawkish, right-wing analysts whose definition of conservatism had never endured such a two-pronged gouging.
Writing for the Washington Post, William Kristol argued that Will's plan said "nothing of the broader consequences of defeat in the Afghan theater in the war against the jihadists."
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moodotv on Oct 3, 2009 3:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corruption and the terrain are insurmountable.
You do not change culture by imposition but by long slow development. The solid rock mountain range in the east near Pakistan provides a great view of any attackers. It is desert as well. Do not go there. I saw it in l955.
Let's help the NW provinces of Pakistan to become
educated and have health care. Do not leave it up to the Saudis only to provide religious schools.
Read Three Cups of Tea- a paperback.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Will wants out of Iraq too
Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: moodotv/ you don't see the writing on the wall
Posted by: nonknown101
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Oct 3, 2009 4:48 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please Will is nothing more than a mouthpiece trying out a test balloon, in hopes of confusing and decieving the Anti War voters and the Isolationist Libertarians.
This is about gaining numbers for the '12 election. First Step in Re writing history in progress is to begin to flip flop your stance on the issue.After 8 yrs of Bush's ineptitude, it's suddenly time to 'cut and Run'?? Of Course because now It has become "Obama's War"- utter BS!
The Repugs are really trying to straddle this debate in such a way it is a Win Win for them. Obama sends more troops, he becomes the 'War Monger', eleviating W & Cheney of those Titled Crowns.If he doesn't he remains 'weak on defense'.
Sending more troops- makes insinuating it is 'Obama's War' more concrete.Their 'journalists' Can finally begin revealing the "new" corruption and missteps,which they had helped cover up over the last 8. And be the ones Screaming about the cost of 'Blood and Money'. Repugs the new torch bearers of the Anti War movement??? Kinda like suddenly being the champion of patient's rights."Citizens for Patient Rights"-My Ass! What part of that Logo has a Repug ever favored?? Repugs have 'Double Speak' down to a fine art.
But..
If he choose not to send troops or not as many as McCrystal asked for- He is 'proving' the Dems are weak on National security and foreign policy. If there is an uptick, or even the status quo of terrorist attacks, each will be attributed to Obama's decision Not to send more troops. If it reverts back to the same level of terrorist domination like the 'last time we left Afgahnistan', they will try to link those two events in the political historical minds of American's. "Charlie Wilsons War" will be the defining chronology of what transpired under the Reagan Admin.
The Repugs are not only hoping to Spin the facts about the last 8 yrs - but 30.And not just the Covert ops in Afganistan, but also those messy details like Iran contra,and Saddam's Anthrax attack on the Kurds. Not to mention the 2 Iraq 'wars'. If they can hand Obama and the Dem the responsiblity for the entire fiasco called the Neo Con era- they would be ecstatic.
George Will has not changed his spots- he's just working the otherside of the herd. The repugs are playing yet another two sided game where not only Dems lose, but so do the Rest of US. Will is a Red Herring,and anyone using half their brain cells knows it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: George Will has not changed his spots, anyone using half their brain cells knows it.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: continued...
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: "Divide & Conquer"-Going after the Far Left and Libertarian Voters
Posted by: blind848
» FASCIST "Divide & Conquer" crushes EVERYONE under false labels “right”, “left” & “center”
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Carol Burns on Oct 3, 2009 6:46 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You don’t “know better” –> Obama = FASCIST PUPPET & you’ve been duped
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps
» Obama fully supported " the TARP gift to the financial sector"
Posted by: Man_vs_Kleptocracy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Oct 3, 2009 7:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Afghanistan .I read somewhere where even Alexander the Great decided it was not worth the cost and left .
There is talk about negotiating with the "good" Taliban which may be a face saving way out ,
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: weathered on Oct 3, 2009 7:16 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take back the media, see the MSM monster for exactly what it is;an accomplice to the crimes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: lets pick a popular one, Arianna Huffington
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: lets pick a popular one, Arianna Huffington
Posted by: PointMan
» RE: "Huffington Follies" we need it to be FACTUAL, not some Repug bs
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» FACTUAL = False BS of a "Left" vs "Right" divide at Corporate Police State USA
Posted by: PointMan
» RE: That's why the establishment corporate crime class is so very afraid of 9/11 Truth
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» 911 TOOTH! 911 TOOTH! 911 TOOTH!
Posted by: GuitarBill
Comments are closed-
Posted by: geekman on Oct 3, 2009 7:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about the USS Cole? Again, you don't need a special terrorist country to learn how to make a bomb. McVeigh did it here.
My point is, if Afghanistan becomes a terrorist haven again, so what? People that hate the US or hate anyone else will find a way to manifest their hate. We should stop bombing civilians and putting our own troops at risk for some ideal of "ridding the world of terrorists" that is never going to happen. Better security at home, and more importantly, giving them fewer reasons to hate us, will work a lot better.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Trained terrorists?
Posted by: krock
» RE: I wish people would stop saying the terrorists got their training in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sharonsylvie on Oct 3, 2009 8:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: there is a truism for all wars
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 3, 2009 8:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: billwald on Oct 3, 2009 9:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxsmart on Oct 3, 2009 12:01 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lightwing1 on Oct 3, 2009 2:03 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I found this statement to be particularly noxious:
"Their combined vote...was a self-consciously empty, if prideful, political exercise more akin to a nerd struggling feebly in a bully's headlock than to a real ideological coup. It posed no threat to the Republican paradigm."
What - a Republican can't vote based on principle? How sad that the author doesn't recognize the courage that it takes to vote against one's own party and laud that instead of dismissing these votes as "prideful" and "feeble". These representatives pay a price for their non-alignment stance.
The author's attempt to paint all republicans as "neo-con war hawks" is pathetic and erroneous. Of course the majority are, but that doesn't negate the fact that some took a stand against the Afghan war. Those who did, should be celebrated, not scoffed at.
Pathetic.
I am proud that Libertarians are non-interventionist and marched in the infamous February 2003 Anti-War march in SF. So, should I not have added my body and my protest to that anti-war march because I am a Libertarian and therefore insignificant, statistically?
Maybe I'll just stay home next time I align with the Dems on any issue - say eradicating the Drug War or Civil Rights. I mean, you lads and ladies are so righteous that you don't need political allies, do you?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Libertarians defending Republicans. What is pathetic and erroneous?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: I wasn't defending Republicans
Posted by: lightwing1
» RE: Libertarians are not "isolationist"/ no just facists
Posted by: nonknown101
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Oct 3, 2009 2:37 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imperialistic war mongers. Greedy Capitalists.Running dogs, etc.
Those names don't sound so silly, now, do they?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Those names don't sound so silly, now, do they?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Oct 3, 2009 4:35 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And what is the Fascist Party line?
That America is still a somewhat dysfunctional democracy under “capitalism” governed by the “left” “right” and “center” of a system that represents the people.
Hint: that party line does not describe Fascism .
First of all the recently labeled so-called NeoCons (virtually all rabid Wall Street Zionists) are in charge of runway stooge Obama as they were village idiot GW Bush. There are virtually no real “conservatives” at Washington as is proven out by every imperial war vote under every puppet president in memory. And of course there are few real “progressives” - whatever that means - as can be seen by constant democratic 9/11 “war on terror” support that is backed by 1000 lies and counting since the 9/11 coverup . (according to the Center for Public Integrity).
So what does that leave us with?
A decoy farce.
The great American fraud ruled and owned by Organized Corporate Crime or in a word – FASCISM .
Writers like Duncan are tossed in to stir the pot and tell us we are a land divided into phony “left” vs “right” camps when there is no such division let alone a bogus “center” at the top of the Fascist Washington-MSM circus.
In point of fact, one of the only real stories of any worth AlterNOT should be covering is the latest break in the continuing Sibel Edmonds story: the 9/11 coverup whisteblower that both the phony “left” “right” to “center” at the Washington-MSM Fascist carny show simply can’t face. And why? Facing Sibel Edmonds charges would bring down the entire government with its whore-monger media as the sordid treason and betrayal it is.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» WARNING! You are entering the conspiranoid theorist zone.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RING the ALARM! Says neocon establishment troll “GuitarBill”
Posted by: Man_vs_Kleptocracy
» Thanks for proving my point, [expletive deleted]_vs_Kleptocracy
Posted by: GuitarBill
» You make no “point” Mr. status quo neocon, you make only lies
Posted by: Man_vs_Kleptocracy
» Naomi Wolf? Really? No kidding?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» NEOCON GuitarShill barks MORE of his BS CROCK
Posted by: PointMan
» Gee Pointy, what's your point?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Gee, NEOCON GuitarShill - Could it be that you're a Witless Clod?
Posted by: PointMan
» Mister_Cyclops, when will you learn that your opinion is not evidence.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Here's the proof that you're lying to us, MisterCyclops.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Correction. I hit the post button instead of edit.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Paranoid NEOCON spouts BARKING MAD LIAR-FEST party line
Posted by: PointMan
» RE: Here's the proof that you're lying to us, MisterCyclops.guitar shill facist pig
Posted by: nonknown101
» RE: WARNING! You are entering the conspiranoid theorist zone.
Posted by: Haji54
» [AlterNet Advisory] How to read this discussion
Posted by: MaxBridges
» [AlterNet Advisory] How to find the stealth neo-Nazi, MaxBridges.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: the "important and truthful" posting he is responding to
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Lauren, you're nothing but a deceitful lunatic
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Gee Max the neo-Nazi, how come you run and hide when I expose you, Nazi boy?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» [CompulsiveLiar Skinhead Nazi] Mr. Bill Reading Advisory
Posted by: MaxBridges
» STONEWALLING again, Max the compulsive liara
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: NeoCons (virtually all rabid Wall Street Zionists)
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: NeoCons (virtually all rabid Wall Street Zionists)
Posted by: Man_vs_Kleptocracy
» Yo [expletive deleted]_vs_Kleptocracy, where's your proof that America is a "fascist police state"?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Yo [expletive deleted]_vs_Kleptocracy, where's your proof that America is a "fascist police state"?
Posted by: Haji54
» Don't take my word for it
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: NeoCons (virtually all rabid Wall Street Zionists)
Posted by: Haji54
» RE: NeoCons (virtually all rabid Wall Street Zionists)
Posted by: PointMan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peter vojta on Oct 4, 2009 6:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moment they elect somebody like Ron Paul, they will win back the respect they lost.....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Oct 4, 2009 7:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Garvagh on Oct 4, 2009 12:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Is an increase in US troop levels in Afghanistan bad policy?
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: citizenjoe on Oct 4, 2009 12:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, Will is as much a national supremacist as the rest of the so called "conservative" cabal: William (dark glass) Kristol, Robert (wingless Vulcan) Kagan, Sleeza Rice, etc. So why does he want the Empire to retreat (always a dangerous move for Empires as it suggests weakness and less than omnipotence)? My guess is he has two reasons: 1) he sees that the war has been lost already (no establishment of democracy or even stability and order of a dictatorial variety; besides, it has become far too expensive, demoralizing, and most of all the Iraqi referendum will be a debilitating humiliation as bad as the American high tail out of Vietnam; 2) the Republicans will get a shot in the arm, a chance for revival, if Obama, already seen as confused and weak, leaves the battle that strongman Bush began. -- Joe
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: citizenjoe on Oct 4, 2009 12:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, Will is as much a national supremacist as the rest of the so called "conservative" cabal: William (dark glass) Kristol, Robert (wingless Vulcan) Kagan, Sleeza Rice, etc. So why does he want the Empire to retreat (always a dangerous move for Empires as it suggests weakness and less than omnipotence)? My guess is he has two reasons: 1) he sees that the war has been lost already (no establishment of democracy or even stability and order of a dictatorial variety; besides, it has become far too expensive, demoralizing, and most of all the Iraqi referendum will be a debilitating humiliation as bad as the American high tail out of Vietnam; 2) the Republicans will get a shot in the arm, a chance for revival, if Obama, already seen as confused and weak, leaves the battle that strongman Bush began. -- Joe
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Oct 5, 2009 8:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And for those that continue to call this Obama's war - how dare you forget that it was BushCo. that not only invaded Afghanistan, but trumped up the "evidence" to divert into Iraq (weapons of mass deception, anyone)! 8 years, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, and for what? Osama who, al-Qaeda who - look this was all about EMPIRE & AVARICE period! This was about a bunch of chicken-shit people that didn't serve in VietNam because they all had other things to do - and yet these people had NO problem sending other peoples children to die!
This is not now nor was it ever about democracy! Hell, there isn't democracy in America! This was about EMPIRE! And the best that can happen is that the US pull out and allow the Afghani's to try and rebuild their own nation! As a matter of fact, pull most of the US troops from Europe, and the M.E.! And never again should this nation allow itself to be dragged into someone else's wars of CHOICE!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Calm down, love.
Posted by: LightningJoe
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LightningJoe on Oct 6, 2009 7:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But we are not there for possession, but to shore up and vitalize the country in its own right -- because a vital Afghanistan is a bulwark against Muslim extremism. It is also smack next to Pakistan -- over a famously porous border. Pakistan is a state with very pressing terrorist problems of its own, that also happens to have a dozen (or so?) nukes for the spoils of whoever takes the country over.
Can you say "National Security Interest," children? What will be the new Republican talking point, when a nuke goes off in a shipping container, and takes out half of New Jersey? Do you think they'll say "Well, this is our own fault, for pushing Obama to get out of Afghanistan." ???
Hell no! If it ever got that far, the story would change again, and it would be Obama's fault the whole way. Don't get sucked into the Reich's strategy.
We are there not to conquer, but to bolster Afghanistan against the Wild Ones, and Afghanistan's government knows this very well. So does Pakistan, who are working out action agreements with us even now. You can hold your head high, with a real statesman in the Oval Office for a change. All we need is patience, because Obama's heart is in the right place.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Blackpool Hotels on Oct 31, 2009 5:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moodotv on Oct 3, 2009 3:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corruption and the terrain are insurmountable.
You do not change culture by imposition but by long slow development. The solid rock mountain range in the east near Pakistan provides a great view of any attackers. It is desert as well. Do not go there. I saw it in l955.
Let's help the NW provinces of Pakistan to become
educated and have health care. Do not leave it up to the Saudis only to provide religious schools.
Read Three Cups of Tea- a paperback.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Will wants out of Iraq too
Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: moodotv/ you don't see the writing on the wall
Posted by: nonknown101
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Oct 3, 2009 4:48 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please Will is nothing more than a mouthpiece trying out a test balloon, in hopes of confusing and decieving the Anti War voters and the Isolationist Libertarians.
This is about gaining numbers for the '12 election. First Step in Re writing history in progress is to begin to flip flop your stance on the issue.After 8 yrs of Bush's ineptitude, it's suddenly time to 'cut and Run'?? Of Course because now It has become "Obama's War"- utter BS!
The Repugs are really trying to straddle this debate in such a way it is a Win Win for them. Obama sends more troops, he becomes the 'War Monger', eleviating W & Cheney of those Titled Crowns.If he doesn't he remains 'weak on defense'.
Sending more troops- makes insinuating it is 'Obama's War' more concrete.Their 'journalists' Can finally begin revealing the "new" corruption and missteps,which they had helped cover up over the last 8. And be the ones Screaming about the cost of 'Blood and Money'. Repugs the new torch bearers of the Anti War movement??? Kinda like suddenly being the champion of patient's rights."Citizens for Patient Rights"-My Ass! What part of that Logo has a Repug ever favored?? Repugs have 'Double Speak' down to a fine art.
But..
If he choose not to send troops or not as many as McCrystal asked for- He is 'proving' the Dems are weak on National security and foreign policy. If there is an uptick, or even the status quo of terrorist attacks, each will be attributed to Obama's decision Not to send more troops. If it reverts back to the same level of terrorist domination like the 'last time we left Afgahnistan', they will try to link those two events in the political historical minds of American's. "Charlie Wilsons War" will be the defining chronology of what transpired under the Reagan Admin.
The Repugs are not only hoping to Spin the facts about the last 8 yrs - but 30.And not just the Covert ops in Afganistan, but also those messy details like Iran contra,and Saddam's Anthrax attack on the Kurds. Not to mention the 2 Iraq 'wars'. If they can hand Obama and the Dem the responsiblity for the entire fiasco called the Neo Con era- they would be ecstatic.
George Will has not changed his spots- he's just working the otherside of the herd. The repugs are playing yet another two sided game where not only Dems lose, but so do the Rest of US. Will is a Red Herring,and anyone using half their brain cells knows it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: George Will has not changed his spots, anyone using half their brain cells knows it.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: continued...
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: "Divide & Conquer"-Going after the Far Left and Libertarian Voters
Posted by: blind848
» FASCIST "Divide & Conquer" crushes EVERYONE under false labels “right”, “left” & “center”
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Carol Burns on Oct 3, 2009 6:46 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You don’t “know better” –> Obama = FASCIST PUPPET & you’ve been duped
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps
» Obama fully supported " the TARP gift to the financial sector"
Posted by: Man_vs_Kleptocracy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Oct 3, 2009 7:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Afghanistan .I read somewhere where even Alexander the Great decided it was not worth the cost and left .
There is talk about negotiating with the "good" Taliban which may be a face saving way out ,
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: weathered on Oct 3, 2009 7:16 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take back the media, see the MSM monster for exactly what it is;an accomplice to the crimes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: lets pick a popular one, Arianna Huffington
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: lets pick a popular one, Arianna Huffington
Posted by: PointMan
» RE: "Huffington Follies" we need it to be FACTUAL, not some Repug bs
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» FACTUAL = False BS of a "Left" vs "Right" divide at Corporate Police State USA
Posted by: PointMan
» RE: That's why the establishment corporate crime class is so very afraid of 9/11 Truth
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» 911 TOOTH! 911 TOOTH! 911 TOOTH!
Posted by: GuitarBill
Comments are closed-
Posted by: geekman on Oct 3, 2009 7:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about the USS Cole? Again, you don't need a special terrorist country to learn how to make a bomb. McVeigh did it here.
My point is, if Afghanistan becomes a terrorist haven again, so what? People that hate the US or hate anyone else will find a way to manifest their hate. We should stop bombing civilians and putting our own troops at risk for some ideal of "ridding the world of terrorists" that is never going to happen. Better security at home, and more importantly, giving them fewer reasons to hate us, will work a lot better.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Trained terrorists?
Posted by: krock
» RE: I wish people would stop saying the terrorists got their training in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sharonsylvie on Oct 3, 2009 8:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: there is a truism for all wars
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 3, 2009 8:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: billwald on Oct 3, 2009 9:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxsmart on Oct 3, 2009 12:01 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lightwing1 on Oct 3, 2009 2:03 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I found this statement to be particularly noxious:
"Their combined vote...was a self-consciously empty, if prideful, political exercise more akin to a nerd struggling feebly in a bully's headlock than to a real ideological coup. It posed no threat to the Republican paradigm."
What - a Republican can't vote based on principle? How sad that the author doesn't recognize the courage that it takes to vote against one's own party and laud that instead of dismissing these votes as "prideful" and "feeble". These representatives pay a price for their non-alignment stance.
The author's attempt to paint all republicans as "neo-con war hawks" is pathetic and erroneous. Of course the majority are, but that doesn't negate the fact that some took a stand against the Afghan war. Those who did, should be celebrated, not scoffed at.
Pathetic.
I am proud that Libertarians are non-interventionist and marched in the infamous February 2003 Anti-War march in SF. So, should I not have added my body and my protest to that anti-war march because I am a Libertarian and therefore insignificant, statistically?
Maybe I'll just stay home next time I align with the Dems on any issue - say eradicating the Drug War or Civil Rights. I mean, you lads and ladies are so righteous that you don't need political allies, do you?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Libertarians defending Republicans. What is pathetic and erroneous?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: I wasn't defending Republicans
Posted by: lightwing1
» RE: Libertarians are not "isolationist"/ no just facists
Posted by: nonknown101
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Oct 3, 2009 2:37 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imperialistic war mongers. Greedy Capitalists.Running dogs, etc.
Those names don't sound so silly, now, do they?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Those names don't sound so silly, now, do they?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Oct 3, 2009 4:35 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And what is the Fascist Party line?
That America is still a somewhat dysfunctional democracy under “capitalism” governed by the “left” “right” and “center” of a system that represents the people.
Hint: that party line does not describe Fascism .
First of all the recently labeled so-called NeoCons (virtually all rabid Wall Street Zionists) are in charge of runway stooge Obama as they were village idiot GW Bush. There are virtually no real “conservatives” at Washington as is proven out by every imperial war vote under every puppet president in memory. And of course there are few real “progressives” - whatever that means - as can be seen by constant democratic 9/11 “war on terror” support that is backed by 1000 lies and counting since the 9/11 coverup . (according to the Center for Public Integrity).
So what does that leave us with?
A decoy farce.
The great American fraud ruled and owned by Organized Corporate Crime or in a word – FASCISM .
Writers like Duncan are tossed in to stir the pot and tell us we are a land divided into phony “left” vs “right” camps when there is no such division let alone a bogus “center” at the top of the Fascist Washington-MSM circus.
In point of fact, one of the only real stories of any worth AlterNOT should be covering is the latest break in the continuing Sibel Edmonds story: the 9/11 coverup whisteblower that both the phony “left” “right” to “center” at the Washington-MSM Fascist carny show simply can’t face. And why? Facing Sibel Edmonds charges would bring down the entire government with its whore-monger media as the sordid treason and betrayal it is.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» WARNING! You are entering the conspiranoid theorist zone.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RING the ALARM! Says neocon establishment troll “GuitarBill”
Posted by: Man_vs_Kleptocracy
» Thanks for proving my point, [expletive deleted]_vs_Kleptocracy
Posted by: GuitarBill
» You make no “point” Mr. status quo neocon, you make only lies
Posted by: Man_vs_Kleptocracy
» Naomi Wolf? Really? No kidding?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» NEOCON GuitarShill barks MORE of his BS CROCK
Posted by: PointMan
» Gee Pointy, what's your point?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Gee, NEOCON GuitarShill - Could it be that you're a Witless Clod?
Posted by: PointMan
» Mister_Cyclops, when will you learn that your opinion is not evidence.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Here's the proof that you're lying to us, MisterCyclops.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Correction. I hit the post button instead of edit.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Paranoid NEOCON spouts BARKING MAD LIAR-FEST party line
Posted by: PointMan
» RE: Here's the proof that you're lying to us, MisterCyclops.guitar shill facist pig
Posted by: nonknown101
» RE: WARNING! You are entering the conspiranoid theorist zone.
Posted by: Haji54
» [AlterNet Advisory] How to read this discussion
Posted by: MaxBridges
» [AlterNet Advisory] How to find the stealth neo-Nazi, MaxBridges.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: the "important and truthful" posting he is responding to
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Lauren, you're nothing but a deceitful lunatic
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Gee Max the neo-Nazi, how come you run and hide when I expose you, Nazi boy?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» [CompulsiveLiar Skinhead Nazi] Mr. Bill Reading Advisory
Posted by: MaxBridges
» STONEWALLING again, Max the compulsive liara
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: NeoCons (virtually all rabid Wall Street Zionists)
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: NeoCons (virtually all rabid Wall Street Zionists)
Posted by: Man_vs_Kleptocracy
» Yo [expletive deleted]_vs_Kleptocracy, where's your proof that America is a "fascist police state"?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Yo [expletive deleted]_vs_Kleptocracy, where's your proof that America is a "fascist police state"?
Posted by: Haji54
» Don't take my word for it
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: NeoCons (virtually all rabid Wall Street Zionists)
Posted by: Haji54
» RE: NeoCons (virtually all rabid Wall Street Zionists)
Posted by: PointMan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peter vojta on Oct 4, 2009 6:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moment they elect somebody like Ron Paul, they will win back the respect they lost.....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Oct 4, 2009 7:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Garvagh on Oct 4, 2009 12:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Is an increase in US troop levels in Afghanistan bad policy?
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: citizenjoe on Oct 4, 2009 12:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, Will is as much a national supremacist as the rest of the so called "conservative" cabal: William (dark glass) Kristol, Robert (wingless Vulcan) Kagan, Sleeza Rice, etc. So why does he want the Empire to retreat (always a dangerous move for Empires as it suggests weakness and less than omnipotence)? My guess is he has two reasons: 1) he sees that the war has been lost already (no establishment of democracy or even stability and order of a dictatorial variety; besides, it has become far too expensive, demoralizing, and most of all the Iraqi referendum will be a debilitating humiliation as bad as the American high tail out of Vietnam; 2) the Republicans will get a shot in the arm, a chance for revival, if Obama, already seen as confused and weak, leaves the battle that strongman Bush began. -- Joe
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: citizenjoe on Oct 4, 2009 12:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, Will is as much a national supremacist as the rest of the so called "conservative" cabal: William (dark glass) Kristol, Robert (wingless Vulcan) Kagan, Sleeza Rice, etc. So why does he want the Empire to retreat (always a dangerous move for Empires as it suggests weakness and less than omnipotence)? My guess is he has two reasons: 1) he sees that the war has been lost already (no establishment of democracy or even stability and order of a dictatorial variety; besides, it has become far too expensive, demoralizing, and most of all the Iraqi referendum will be a debilitating humiliation as bad as the American high tail out of Vietnam; 2) the Republicans will get a shot in the arm, a chance for revival, if Obama, already seen as confused and weak, leaves the battle that strongman Bush began. -- Joe
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Oct 5, 2009 8:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And for those that continue to call this Obama's war - how dare you forget that it was BushCo. that not only invaded Afghanistan, but trumped up the "evidence" to divert into Iraq (weapons of mass deception, anyone)! 8 years, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, and for what? Osama who, al-Qaeda who - look this was all about EMPIRE & AVARICE period! This was about a bunch of chicken-shit people that didn't serve in VietNam because they all had other things to do - and yet these people had NO problem sending other peoples children to die!
This is not now nor was it ever about democracy! Hell, there isn't democracy in America! This was about EMPIRE! And the best that can happen is that the US pull out and allow the Afghani's to try and rebuild their own nation! As a matter of fact, pull most of the US troops from Europe, and the M.E.! And never again should this nation allow itself to be dragged into someone else's wars of CHOICE!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Calm down, love.
Posted by: LightningJoe
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LightningJoe on Oct 6, 2009 7:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But we are not there for possession, but to shore up and vitalize the country in its own right -- because a vital Afghanistan is a bulwark against Muslim extremism. It is also smack next to Pakistan -- over a famously porous border. Pakistan is a state with very pressing terrorist problems of its own, that also happens to have a dozen (or so?) nukes for the spoils of whoever takes the country over.
Can you say "National Security Interest," children? What will be the new Republican talking point, when a nuke goes off in a shipping container, and takes out half of New Jersey? Do you think they'll say "Well, this is our own fault, for pushing Obama to get out of Afghanistan." ???
Hell no! If it ever got that far, the story would change again, and it would be Obama's fault the whole way. Don't get sucked into the Reich's strategy.
We are there not to conquer, but to bolster Afghanistan against the Wild Ones, and Afghanistan's government knows this very well. So does Pakistan, who are working out action agreements with us even now. You can hold your head high, with a real statesman in the Oval Office for a change. All we need is patience, because Obama's heart is in the right place.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Blackpool Hotels on Oct 31, 2009 5:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Beer Battles: Workers in Belgium Take on Brewing Giant
White "Savior-Afflicted" Christians, Black Haitian Babies: This Won't End Well




