O’Reilly: Taliban Resurgence In Afghanistan Is A ‘Myth’
O’Reilly: Taliban Resurgence In Afghanistan Is A ‘Myth’
Yesterday on Fox News, host Bill O’Reilly tried to argue that Afghanistan has been “successful” and that “there’s no danger at all of the Taliban reclaiming that country.” At the worst, he said, the Taliban will be “annoying.” When his guest, Harvard University professor Sarah Sewall, pointed out that people on the ground disagree, O’Reilly dismissed her, stating, “I talked to everybody.” Watch it:
Supreme NATO commander Gen. James Jones recently stated that Afghanistan is close to becoming a “narco state,” whose $3 billion dollars in annual drug profits are financing the Taliban. Council on Foreign Relations Afghanistan expert Dr. Barnett Rubin said that Afghanistan Afghanistan is at a “tipping point” and that the Afghan people believe “trends are going in the Taliban’s favor.” Gen. David Richards, a British officer who commands NATO’s 32,000 troops, warned that unless coalition forces begin stepping up reconstruction efforts, 70 percent of the country could decide to back the Taliban.
Doesn’t sound like O’Reilly talked to everybody.
Full transcript below:
O’REILLY: But look, we were successful in Afghanistan. And nobody thought –
SEWALL: Well, the jury’s still out on Afghanistan.
O’REILLY: — overthrow the Taliban in that way. So we were successful.
SEWALL: Unfortunately, Afghanistan’s going backwards.
O’REILLY: That’s a myth.
SEWALL: — which I think speaks –
O’REILLY: That’s a myth.
SEWALL: — to part of the problem with the focus of effort on Iraq. We risked losing the progress that has been made in Afghanistan.
O’REILLY: Now you’re just - that’s not true. There’s always going to be a Taliban insurrection.
SEWALL: It is true.
O’REILLY: As long as they have mountain - now it’s not. Every military analyst working for our team says most of that country is pacified.
SEWALL: Maybe you should be talking to the people on the ground –
O’REILLY: I talked to everybody.
SEWALL: — because they’re concerned about the situation.
O’REILLY: You’re just parroting the left wing line that America doesn’t know what it’s doing.
SEWALL: I’m parroting conversations with commanders who are in uniform serving in Afghanistan.
O’REILLY: All right, so have I. Our information is that there’s no danger at all of the Taliban reclaiming that country, none. They’ll be annoying. There will be a guerrilla warfare. It will not happen. I believe that.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
100 Responses to “O’Reilly: Taliban Resurgence In Afghanistan Is A ‘Myth’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Awkward! How very awkward!
October 24th, 2006 at 1:10 pmReality is a myth in O’Reilly’s twisted mind.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:10 pmWhat an arrogant MF this guy is. Who in their right minds listens to this guy?
October 24th, 2006 at 1:11 pmhe sees a little bit of terrorism as annoying? interesting. i think its cause he identifys with other “culture warriors”
October 24th, 2006 at 1:13 pmBill-O has already said he only listens to the Fox News military analysts (because every cable news channel has its own army). If this is any indication of the information they give Fox News hosts, maybe Fox News Channel needs to hire better military analysts.
And to all who wonder why we go on about this gasbag, it’s because he has one of the highest rated cable news channels in the country (it might have slipped), and he’s giving out terribly bad information. He practically implores his viewers and radio listeners to worship at his altar of truth claiming that he knows the facts. He might know the facts; he just ain’t saying them.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:14 pmShe should have just ballbusted him. Tell him to his face that he is joke. I self parody. A laughing stock. And of course, a dangerous lackey of the administration.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:15 pmYeah, I believe O’Reily over a Harvard University Professor. O’Reily is much more smarterer.
He’ll be on Letterman Friday, and I saw a brief clip. Looks like Dave tells it how he sees it. Should be fun to watch.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:15 pmthis prick went all the way there. so all the high-ranking nco’s and co’s are lying? didn’t know o’lielly was over there and was a witness to what is happening. damn.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:15 pmBO is an insufferable egomaniac.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:16 pmHe believes he is omnipotent and omniscient.
Just ask him.
Apparently O’Pompously didn’t talk to anyone who actually knew anything about the situation. Maybe he talked to several annoyed females while referencing his shower fantasy!
October 24th, 2006 at 1:17 pmSet up the Afgan webcams, so we can see for ourselves how peaceful it is.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:20 pmHow about we all play the SAT game:
O’Reilly is to ______________ as _______ is to _____________.
My suggestion:
O’Reilly is to intelligent commentary as a gaping genital sore is to sexual attraction.
Feel free to add your own.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:20 pmDilly O’Rielly,
Will Letterman, smack you down again?
October 24th, 2006 at 1:22 pmBEEP BEEP…darn o’liely setting off my lie detector again…’Don’t make us send out THINK PROGRESS SECURITY!….billie boy..
October 24th, 2006 at 1:23 pm#12 - UM
October 24th, 2006 at 1:24 pmeewww!
Perhaps Bill Needs to broadcast his show from Afghanistan for a week or so just to prove hi spoint. Maybe one day on a US Military base, then the rest from various cities and villages.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:24 pmO’Reilly is to pompous gasbag as pompous gas bag is to pompous gasbag.
(There was no outdoing UnHoly Moses for an analogy - only direct logic is left)
October 24th, 2006 at 1:30 pmTypical O’lielly, anytime someone says something that doesn’t fit in his compartmentalized reality, you’re a parrot for the left wing. When will FOX finally get rid of their tag line, “We report you decide.” to “We distort and we lie.” ?
October 24th, 2006 at 1:31 pm#12
October 24th, 2006 at 1:31 pmPolitical discourse ~!~ Donald Rumsfeld ~!~ Great American heroes
How come TP doesn’t setup “email campaigns” like it did for the stupid-ass disney 9-11 fantasy, nor when that evil witch condi was on Fox with Chris Wallace?
TP When you do this you make it easy for everyone to send a little comment..
I REALLY like the idea of sending O’Really over to Iraq and Afghansitan to broadcast for a week, hell as poor as I am, I’ll PayPal $100 to pay for the plane ticket.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:39 pmO’Reilly is such a stupid person > He is a worthless human being like Bush!
October 24th, 2006 at 1:41 pmO’Reilly is an idiot.
Why are you obsessed with him?
October 24th, 2006 at 1:47 pmDoes anyone actually watch him on tv?
I agree with O’Reilly. This terrorism is really annoying. And I am so glad that GDumbya is my presidunce because “if we don’t fight the terrorists over there, they will be ‘annoying’ us here in the U.S.”.
Honestly, though, O’Reilly is a total and absolute idiot. He has joined Limpballs, Hannity and the rest of the right-wing talk show hacks in the “Spin and Spin and Spin and Spin Zone”. All these guys are scared as hell that the Republicans will lose their stranglehold on our Federal government this fall when the Democrats take back Congress.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:49 pm“You’re just parroting the left-wing line…”
When was the last time O’Reilly called anyone for parroting the right-wing line?
Anybody? Anybody?
October 24th, 2006 at 1:50 pmBill O’Reilly-LSOS.
Lying sack of shit.
They have now begun to believe their own spin, pathetic.
-GSD
October 24th, 2006 at 1:54 pmMark #16 - Yeah. There’s this quaint little area known as Kandahar, and another little hamlet of Spin boldak he’d be welcomed with open small arms.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:55 pmThe only time I see this guy on TV is when Olbermann has him up as a “worst person” on his show. Heh.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:56 pmKeep hangin yourself there, billy-boy. eventually even the dummies who watch his show will catch on if he keeps up this level of dystardia.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:57 pmO’Reilly is to pathological narcissism as the Pope to Catholocism.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pmI wish I knew everything and was right 100% of the time like Bill!
October 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pmI hear Kandahar has some really good off-roadin’. Get the ATV’s out and let it rip.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:04 pmSo, O’Rielly is saying that we can never win the war against the Taliban?
Why does Bill O’Rielly hate America?
October 24th, 2006 at 2:05 pmI think O’Reilly’s education is a myth.
It’s the only thing that makes sense.
Conservative Republicans are less educated compared to Progressive Democrats, everyone know that. (See how I’ve used the Republican talking-line against them?!?)
October 24th, 2006 at 2:07 pmWatching Mr. O’Reilly, you get a very palpable sense of how deeply he feels for the Afghani people.
He will never let the world forget their suffering. Never again.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:07 pmBeing the good investigative reporter that he is, O’Reilly should go personally investigate. Maybe airtravel to Afghanisan is too expensive for him?
October 24th, 2006 at 2:11 pmJeez, but this guy is a pig. Hey Bill-O, don’t let little things like the facts get in the way of your spinning in the no-spin zone.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:12 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
O’REILLY: As long as they have mountain - now it’s not. Every military analyst working for our team says most of that country is pacified.
So FOX employees are saying that everything is ok in Afghanistan. That’s his source? Well no wonder it sounds stupid being spoken out loud.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:15 pmSo, I talked to everbody at my company and they all said that we make the best products on the market. Imagine that!
October 24th, 2006 at 2:25 pmO’Reilly on Good Morning America: “If it turns out there are no WMD’s, I won’t support the Bush administration anymore, OK?”
Why do O’Reilly fans have so little self-respect?
October 24th, 2006 at 2:26 pmO’Reilly may think that a Taliban resurgence is a myth, but global hunger is NOT and should not be denied any longer. According to the Borgen Project, more than 1.2 billion people are forced to survive on less than $1 a day. With the UN Millennium Development goals, the plan to end world poverty has been written and now needs only to be championed by political officals and public opinion leaders. Let’s hear O’Reilly call that a myth.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:27 pmThe Pipelines Are Secured,…………. for now. That’s all that matters to this bunch. End Of Story.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:31 pmmyth sewall, that is all he was trying to say, myth sewall, he had a piece of something in his mouth that caused his speech impediment
October 24th, 2006 at 2:32 pmwhat’s in his brain causing the other impediment? I hope he had a phone attached so he could “talk to everybody” quick, give his phone number to the robocallers for the erection, let’s see if he squirts
O’Reilly ever getting laid is a myth.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:35 pmO’Lie-lly has shown why Faux News is losing ratings.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:37 pmMaybe Bill needs a one way ticket to Kandahar so he can see for himself.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pmI saw Billyboy on David Letterman awhile back. Dave basically said he was full of shit to his face. Is this a new episode or a rerun?
October 24th, 2006 at 3:08 pmFrom Boing Boing
Bill O’Reilly’s alleged falafel fetish now has a name
Link to http://www.falaphilia.com.
fa·la·phil·i·a (n.)
1. Obsessive fascination with ground spiced chickpeas shaped into balls and fried.
2. Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with garbanzo beans, coriander, and cumin.
3. An abnormal fondness for being in the presence of middle eastern foods. Also called taboulehmania, hummulingus.
4. Sexual contact with or erotic desire for a falafel.
Background on the sexual harassment suit filed by a former subordinate of the famed Fox News anchor here: Link. BoingBoing reader Anna wonders if the whole debacle might be more accurately described as a case of Batata Harrahssment. I don’t know, but get ready for lots of bad puns on good food.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:25 pm#46 buzzbomb,
I think the show is new. The other guests this week are new. Besides, Bill has another book to hawk. (Title: “My Blood is Red, My Skin is White, My Jacket is Blue.”) Maybe Letterman will ask him if he still supports the Bush Administration despite there being no WMD found.
Letterman told him before, “I’ve got the feeling that about 60% of what you say is crap.”
October 24th, 2006 at 3:26 pmWayne,
October 24th, 2006 at 3:51 pmThat’s not really the name of the book is it?
I recently returned from Kabul after living there for 6 months - things are spiralling out of control, especially in the South and Southeast, and threatening the capital in a way it has not been since the overthrow of the Taliban. O’Reilly should be sent over to Camp Bastion in Helmand for some from-location-reporting with the poor Brit soldiers and told to make his way back to Kabul (given that he thinks things are safe!). I am sure he would be able to speak to everyone along the way and find out whether the Taliban are making a comeback…
October 24th, 2006 at 3:57 pmdlet,
Maybe. :)
No, it’s “Culture Wanker”, I mean, “Corrupt Warrior”, no that’s not it, it’s “Canker Walker”, no, that’s not it, either.
You know? I think I’ve drawn a mental block on it. :)
(It’s “Culture Warrior”, and he’s wearing a nice blue jacket on the cover.)
October 24th, 2006 at 3:58 pmhttp://www.cashcrate.com/index.php?ref=52636
You get money for filling out surveys, usually $1 each, but they add up. There are also free trials for more than $30 each. The surveys are really easy and only take a couple minutes. Each month they send u a check in the mail for your earnings. This site is 100% legit. You can check the forums for proof of payment. Its a good way to make some extra cash. Last month I got a check for $80.33, and so far I have made $147.67! http://www.cashcrate.com/index.php?ref=52636
October 24th, 2006 at 4:10 pmWayne,
October 24th, 2006 at 4:11 pmYeah I remember seeing the cover with the jacket but I didn’t think even he would be stupid enough to say “My skin is white” in that context. But I couldn’t be sure. You never know with these mutants. It was a good funny though. Thanks.
Who is the Harvard Professor? Dee Dee Dee.
***** ‘Tard. Is this all the little republican Trolls can do: Invite a person eons more intellegent you and then troll them to silence?
The left has no opposition!
Unless you think psychopaths and retards are opposition?
There is no debate, Republicans can’t debate, they are the fools of our society. They are just trolls, on the blogs and in real life! Trolls! Just Trolls! Republicans have no political idiology that can stand up for itself, they just want to be Trolls in real life!
October 24th, 2006 at 4:21 pm#2.”Reality is a myth in O’Reilly’s twisted mind.”
Exactly! Republicans are reality deniers.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:26 pmAmazing how the majority of comments are from the left and all they do is blab the worn out talking points of name call. Old and boring.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:35 pmMaybe her views is that of the left. Her profile from the Harvord Web site.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:37 pmSarah Sewall, Lecturer in Public Policy, directs the Carr Center’s Program on National Security and Human Rights. During the Clinton Administration, Sewall served in the Department of Defense as the first Deputy Assistant Secretary for Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Assistance. From 1987-1993, she served as Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, delegate to the Senate Arms Control Observer Group, and on the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Sewall has also worked at a variety of defense research organizations and as Associate Director of the Committee on International Security Studies at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She was lead editor of The United States and the International Criminal Court: National Security and International Law (2000) and has written widely on U.S. foreign policy, multilateralism, peace operations, and military intervention. Her current research focuses on the civilian in war and includes facilitating a dialogue between the military and human rights communities on the use of force.
I think BO’s new book is “Kanker Schenker”, and dildo illustrations by “Betty Won’t”. Falafel recipe by “Holden Dicks.”
Which has inspired his new Restaurant, “The Aweful Falafel”
October 24th, 2006 at 4:38 pmYeah, execution by stoning for showing an inch of skin is so annoying.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:40 pmAmazing how the majority of comments are from the left and all they do is blab the worn out talking points of name call. Old and boring.
Comment by dave
Go on over to Red Stain, where you’re wanted.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:40 pmInteresting. The Republicans are preaching “Terror, Terror, Terror†to their fear-based supporters, and then saying everything is under control out of the other side of their mouth.
No wonder Fox News ratings are in the toilet. They are confusing to their own shrinking base of viewers.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:44 pmWhen BORe talks about everybody he’s talking about himself anf falafels,, or was it George that said that…EnnyWhooo the guy is as wacky as that druggie Flush the Dimbulb, both asshats don’t care if what they says is true or not.
Fair and Balanced, is, in reality, Lies and Misdirection.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:44 pmBO’s next book.
“Lights out at the White House”
Co-written by Sharon and Holden Dicks.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:44 pmB. O’Loofaly is absurd. The fact that he is incapible of debating well makes him a poor choice for an interviewer. He did show respect for B. Woodward, which means he has some self-respect - probably the only respect he’ll ever have.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:46 pmB.O. is to Journalism as Milli Vanilli was to Pop Music.
Man, I’m getting old….
RH
Naw, that’s the ’stay the course’ crowd of Rovian bilge
October 24th, 2006 at 4:46 pmBO is to the Truth, as the Corvair was to fine automobile craftsmenship.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:48 pmOhhh Filth O’Lielly Racist Rants!
[sung to sponge bob]
Whos slimy as a fish and flops on the deck?
Filth O’Lielly Racist Rants!
I can’t Hear Youuuuuu!!
Filth O’Lielly Racist Rants!!
October 24th, 2006 at 4:48 pmWow. He really is Nuts…
October 24th, 2006 at 4:52 pmBill O’Reilly is a self-made man, and worships his creator.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:13 pmI think it’s ironic that people are claiming a harvard uni professor is someone who participates in “real” research. A uni professor researches for a university; while she may participate in commercial or military action, she’s not actually employed. O’Reilly, who, while a blowhard and constantly incorrect, is in the right in saying that Afghanistan will not be reclaimed; I’m just more curious to see what “sources” on “the ground” the harvard prof has been talking to.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:45 pmBill O’Reilly holds a degree in History from Marist College, a Master’s in Broadcast Journalism from Boston University and another Master’s Degree in Public Administration from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Same school as the Prof.
Masters from Harvard…yea he must be dumb.
Amazing how this is simply a group of self reassurring name callers. No real conversation.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:52 pm“Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach”
October 24th, 2006 at 5:53 pm“Most Christians like myself”. Name calling again??
October 24th, 2006 at 6:06 pmActually the last time I was in a church (last year) was for a funeral. I am not a right wing christian. Not even close. I would say I’m agnostic.
I only used the profiles to show how your arguments lack. Yale, yea I think you need to be smart to go to Yale. Wait the old tired reply from you will be “Daddy got him in”. See I can even respond for you. And please tell us where you gained all you worldly knowledge. Public schools?
Actually the only person to really state anything of value appears to RecentlyBackfromKabul. He speaks from 1st hand knowledge. The rest of the poster appear to be just the same old “hate Bush” crowd. Which by the way usually lacks intelligent debate and almost always resorts to name calling.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:15 pmShoot,
We should have left the Taliban in place and not attacked them. If only we left dictators and those fighting against the USA alone. Hell, we would only get attacked every couple of years.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:08 pmRogerRoger: “We should have left the Taliban in place and not attacked them.”
Just set those straw men up and knock em down, right roger. No, what we should have done is stay in Afganistan, send 20,000 special forces into the mountains of Tora Bora and killed that MFer when we had the chance. Your guys screwed that up big time. Why can’t you just admit it, coward.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:24 pmThanks NATO for not doing your job! BTW where it the U.N. in trying to help in Afghanistan?
October 24th, 2006 at 7:41 pmTracy: It’s NATO’s fault!! It’s the U.N.’s fault!! It couldn’t possibly be my dear leader’s fault.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:45 pmO’Reilly is such a !#$!#%!#%@^@^#!#@$#@!$!@#%!^$#^!#$^!$#^!#$%!#$%!@#$!#@$!@#$!#@%!#@%!#$%%!$.
He claims that the Harvard Professor (lol which is a credential O’Reilly can’t even DREAM of) was parroding a left-wing message
WHAT ABOUT YOU, YOU JACK@$$?!
October 24th, 2006 at 7:56 pm[…] And people wonder how was it possible that Bush won two terms in office? I’m an American and I could tell you that half this country is stuck on stupid. And that’s why Republicans hold power and people like O’Reilly & Limpdick have a voice.read more | digg story […]
October 24th, 2006 at 8:12 pmHere’s someone Bill didn’t talk to.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:36 pmI’d like to introduce Bill to some people who know better…
Canada’s casualties
October 24th, 2006 at 8:47 pmSory for the double post; the first one didn’t show up right away, and this one cuts a little close to home. Our idiot Prime Minister commited us to two more years in Kandahar, after our last idiot PM sent them in against the advice of his top generals here. Our soldiers are dying because of George Bush’s failure to take the real terrorists seriously. PLease impeach the bastard SOON!
October 24th, 2006 at 8:52 pm#56 #71 #72 #76
“Dave” “Brandyn”
First of all - don’t be so beholden to degrees and schools.
Former Enron chief Jeffrey Skilling is a Harvard MBA. Now he is about to do 24 years in jail.
So … how smart is he?
What about Slobodan Milosevic? He was considered to be an excellent law student.
So … do you go ahead agree with everything he said and did because he studied well as a post graduate student?
I am in a charitable mood today - so I decided to find and share this tidbit with you O’Reilly supporters.
This is from your own “talking point sheet” - The Washington Times. Sept. 12, 2006.
—-
“Suicide bombings were a rare phenomenon a year ago; this year over 70 attacks have been recorded and roadside bombings have doubled, many employing remote detonated technologies with increasingly lethal success.
Another suicide bombing killed the governor of Paktia province, Hakim Taniwal, and two companions on Sunday, with other strikes reported elsewhere.
NATO’s top commander, U.S. Gen. James Jones, visited Kabul last week and said he was stunned by the “level of intensity” of Taliban aggression since the July handover of nationwide security operations.
Of the clashes between NATO forces and insurgents, Brig. Gen. Ed Butler, the top British commander in Afghanistan Friday said, “The intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis.”
—-
Oh, those damned U.S. and British Generals - just a bunch of “Lefties.”
They sit in their ivory castle offices at Harvard and … oh, wait … they are not at Harvard …
They are actually in Afghanistan … Actually FIGHTING the Taliban ….
But somehow, O’Reilly knows more than the generals …
So this is how you Republicans are going to keep “America safe”, huh?
Ignore the reports from two generals actually fighting in Afghanistan and instead, take your direction from a jackass on TV.
I don’t care what schools O’Reilly went to or what he studied or how good of a student he was.
He is abysmally stupid right now - and has been for the last 5 to 10 years. If not longer.
If this guy is your source for intelligent (or even realistic) news - well that doesn’t put you two in the brightest light either …
October 24th, 2006 at 8:58 pm#83
No, it NATO’s fault that they can do their job. It amazing that once NATO took over operations in Afghanistan the Taliban really started to step up their attacks, especially suicide bombings. BTW where is the U.N. in trying to help the situation in Afghanistan?
October 24th, 2006 at 9:23 pmOf the clashes between NATO forces and insurgents, Brig. Gen. Ed Butler, the top British commander in Afghanistan Friday said, “The intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis.â€
Yeah…there is an insurgency, but it’s NOT as bad as Iraq’s. General officers in the UK are practically politicians in of themselves and given a lot more leeway to say such things than the US military. That’s not necessarily a bad thing as they also tend to say things closer to the truth about the situation on the ground. But I was deployed to Afghanistan for two years (extended the second year) and really, it was anything near the insurgency reported in Iraq.
I think because not much actually goes on in the country (when compared to other operations is involved in) that when something does occur, it really makes news.
If course I hear from friends still in the country, or those who have gone back on rotations, say that’s changing. So who knows…But Bill O’Reily second guessing academic experts like that who were invited to speak…everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how unqualified it may be, but to debate with a professional like that and run her around the mud for awhile isn’t cool.
October 24th, 2006 at 9:26 pmDarfur and the like. You read the US media at face value and it makes it look NOTHING is being accomplished in the country because of our presence; which is ignoring the fact that the reconstruction of Afghanistan has been progressing along for quite a while with results.
October 24th, 2006 at 9:30 pm#92 / # 93
Thanks for the posts, Sendai.
I appreciate the insight.
Regarding, Afghanistan - Let’s strip out whatever hyperbole there may be in the reporting of the violence (in your words - it is bad but not Iraq) and acknowledge the underreporting progress.
Given the current developments in Afghanistan with the Taliban - do you think things will be ok with a static strategy - or will we have to adapt to deal with these new develpments?
If we need to adapt - what do you suggest?
October 24th, 2006 at 10:06 pmTracy, if your dumb ass president hadn’t left Afghanistan in the lurch we would have killed OBL, Zawihiri, and Omar. Instead we had to bury ourselves up to the neck in the sands of Iraq. We could have possibly turned Afghanistan around after almost thirty years of war there. We left the mission incomplete, period, end of story. Quit blaming Chimpy’s failures on the UN and Nato. You and Bush’s buddy Pakistan have really helped too, signing a peace treaty with the Taliban. You think that might have something to do with the increase in attacks now that they can act freely in Pakistan? Oh, my bad I forgot you don’t think do you numb nuts.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:41 pm,i>It amazing that once NATO took over operations in Afghanistan the Taliban really started to step up their attacks, especially suicide bombings.
Comment by Tracy — October 24, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
Not true, Tracy. That it seems so to you means you haven’t been following the news. First, the Taliban never really went away: They remained “dormant” in the region bordering Pakistan, specially in the Kandahar province. Second, their resurgence as a destabilising force started about a year ago:
Nearly four years after a U.S.-led military intervention toppled them from power, the Taliban has re-emerged as a potent threat to stability in Afghanistan.
A new Taliban has re-emerged in Afghanistan
NATO took over the security of the Eastern and Southern provinces only recently (these areas were under British and American control before) but were involved since early on. The transfer happens to be at time when the Taliban have stepped up their attacks precisely in those areas.
BTW where is the U.N. in trying to help the situation in Afghanistan?
Didn’t Pres Bush declare the UN “irrelevant”? Why would he want their help now?
Plus, the UN has humanitarian missions in Afghanistan. Of course, if you expect military help from the UN, that’s not going to happen. The UN is not a military coalition or treaty.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:08 amYeah, I like how Newsweek magazine has had interviews with taliban leaders in Afganistan and they now own about 70 percent of the country there.
10 miles in any direction outside the Kubul and you are in terrorist territory. This is a fact.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:02 am#95
“Tracy, if your dumb ass president hadn’t left Afghanistan in the lurch we would have killed OBL, Zawihiri, and Omar.”
“We could have possibly turned Afghanistan around after almost thirty years of war there.”
And you actually think the the Taliban would have thrown up their hands and tried to make peace with the new Afghan government after those thugs you listed were eliminated? To turn around that county doesn’t involve killing or capturing all of the terrorists and insurgents (like in Iraq BTW). It involves changing the politics and eliminating the embracement of fanatical Islam. How to do that is the real solution.
“Quit blaming Chimpy’s failures on the UN and Nato.”
Again the elimination of those thee characters wouldn’t stop the attacks by the Taliban. They would just become marytrs. I am only blaming NATO for having a “defensive” posture in Afghanistan. NATO’s policy today, as it was during the Cold War, FYI is not a pro-active, i.e. the bad word called “pre-emptive”. I hope NATO is finally getting the hint.
http://www.spacewar.com/ reports/ NATO_Top_General_Calls_For_Proactive_Alliance.html
“You think that might have something to do with the increase in attacks now that they can act freely in Pakistan?”
Signing a treaty with the Taliban? You actually think that actually had something to do with the increased attack inside Afghanistan? That’s funny.
BTW what is up with you LITTLE mouth throwing out the insults? Pretty typical of many people here that would only do it thru a keyboard…like yourself.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:26 am“Second, their resurgence as a destabilising force started about a year ago:”
I was not talking about their resurgence. I was referring to the fact that since NATO had taken control of the Eastern and Southern provinces you rightly mentioned, 2006 has been the deadliest year for Afghan civilians.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15245470/
“The attack on Kabul highway just outside the city is the latest in an increasing number of suicide bombings that have killed about 200 people this year, already the bloodiest year in Afghanistan since the Taliban government was toppled in 2001.”
NATO I think is changing their defensive posture to a offensive one in regards to fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan…something they should have done before the were ever deployed there.
“Didn’t Pres Bush declare the UN “irrelevantâ€? Why would he want their help now?”
No he said they were in danger of becoming irrelevant if the didn’t get off their asses and help.
“Plus, the UN has humanitarian missions in Afghanistan. Of course, if you expect military help from the UN, that’s not going to happen. The UN is not a military coalition or treaty.”
Of course I wouldn’t expect the U.N. to go into the really dangerous spots around the world. The U.N. is not a military coalition?…that’s funny because ARMED U.N. peacekeepers today are in multiple coutries around the world. Would it be too much to ask the U.N. to send some decent PEACE keeping forces to Afghanistan? They don’t have to help hunt the Taliban but just refrain from harassing the locals and raping their women and childern.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ international/ story/ 0,3604,1445537,00.html
October 25th, 2006 at 11:47 amTracy’s just glad that so much more heroin is available now that Afghans are enjoying the freedom we blessed them with.
It’s your mess Tracy - why would you think anyone else should clean it up for you? You teach your kids that same concept of fairness?
October 25th, 2006 at 12:51 pmWell, my reply to Tracy won’t “stick”. So here is a short version -without the links.
NATO took over the security of the Eastern Afghan provinces roughly a month ago. The Taliban was on the rise well before that. Also, the peace treaty Pakistan signed with their own internal pro-Taliban groups has been largely blamed for the trippling of the number of attacks in the Afghan provinces bordering with Pakistan.
As for the UN peacekeepers, their mission is not to wage an aggressive war. They are peacekeepers whose mission is to ensure the conflicting parties actually keep their commitment to stop fighting. Their operation is largely defensive, not offensive.
Finally, the US is member of both NATO and the UN. The US is a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council. If the Bush administration wanted to change the involvement of those two organisations in Afghanistan, they could ask.
Neither the UN nor NATO are going to wrestle control of Afghanistan away from the US. The Bush administration has to be willing to cede it.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:29 pm[…] My objection to the Afghanistan campaign is that the Bush administration completely mismanaged that conflict years ago. Sending too few forces, a recurring theme in the Bush White House, and diverting resources to the misadventure in Iraq, have allowed an unfinished job turn into a Taliban resurgence. This after five years of combat operations and the al-Qaeda leader still a fugutive from U.S. forces. The job wasn’t finished prior to Iraq. And due to that, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are adopting tactics used by those in Iraq in an attempt to reclaim power, despite what Bill O’Reilly believes to be “a myth.” […]
October 26th, 2006 at 7:45 am“As for the UN peacekeepers, their mission is not to wage an aggressive war. They are peacekeepers whose mission is to ensure the conflicting parties actually keep their commitment to stop fighting. Their operation is largely defensive, not offensive.”
I know that. This is why I was asking for peace keepers from the U.N., not offensive proactive military personnel that know how to hunt the enemy. What I would like the U.N. peacekeepers in Afghanistan AND Iraq for is to do the defensive “police” work and free up U.S. forces to do the offensive operations. We both know however that the U.N. will never send in troops unless their is a certain level of security FIRST and that’s a pathetic litmus test for putting in troops to keep the peace.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:15 pmI really really want to kill him now. Didn’t expect that from myself :)
October 29th, 2006 at 3:09 pm[…] the Taliban will be an “annoying.” When his guest, Harvard University professor Sarah Sewall, pointed out that people on the ground disagree, O’Reilly dismissed her, stating, “I talked to everybody.” Watch it:read more | digg story Links […]
October 30th, 2006 at 7:26 amMaria Professor Seahagg and the rest of you liberal communtist never see the good that go’s on .All of you marxist do is give the enemy what they need just by you all onpening your socalist mouth’s. they love it when you communist speak over these issuses. And all that you liberal’s stand for is immoral in sociaty. And that is the major reason the middle east dislike about us. You liberal’s are the real reason they attack us is your immoral why of thinking. Quote for Quinn “LIBERAL’S GENERATE THE EXACT OPPOSSITE OF THEIR STATED INTENT” That’s why the middle east can’t stand us is because of you stinking liberal’s. Your love for gay’s, pediphile’s, dike’s ect. ect. They have seen how you liberal’s have distroyed our own childern by you sick thinking. Let alone the distruction of our on liberties from the like’s of the ACLU. Since you know that you couldn’t get your sick ways of living passed through the Senate or Congress you get’m passed through corrupt Liberal Judges that think the same sick way you moron’s think. You liberals’ are the reason they dislike the USA.
February 12th, 2007 at 4:03 am