Op-ed: No good options for Obama in Afghanistan
My latest column is up and running at the South Florida Times.
David Gregory: ‘the left’ opposes Afghan escalation … George Will: ‘I oppose Afghan escalation’
David Gregory’s Fox News audition continued this week, as he inexplicably couched opposition to the president’s Afghanistan troop increase in partisan terms:
MR. GREGORY (to Bob Woodward): All right, I’ve just got a couple minutes left. Let’s bring it back to domestic politics here. The left does not like this war, doesn’t like this strategy. How’s this going to get paid for, Bob? Is there going to have to be some kind of war tax to pay the additional $30 billion to send 30,000 more troops?
So how to explain non-left wingers like George Will, who’s been calling for an exit from Afghanistan since August, and who reiterated the point on a better rated network today? Read more
Barack Obama’s “there’s no pretty way to say this” speech
President Obama delivered a talk tonight on the grim reality of what we have to do in Afghanistan, and he did so without frills. To put it bluntly, the speech didn’t soar. There was no cinematic moment out of a Hollywood war epic. No brilliant, thrilling “yes we can.” But hell, it’s hard to soar when you’re selling a plan to endanger the lives of 30,000 young men and women, to fix a mess left to you by eight years of dithering and failure by the previous administration.
The president did what he had to do tonight, and he clearly didn’t love it. I don’t love it either, but I agree with what the plan, and with the fact that unfortunately, given what the Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld failure squad left him (if there’s any justice in the universe, these three and their assorted henchmen will rot in hell for what they did to our country…) President Obama is doing what must be done to finally win and end this war. And by win, I mean deliver a stable enough Afghanistan for the Karzai disaster regime to govern.
The right won’t give him much support, because he set forth an exit plan. The left will still hate the escalation of the war. So the president really couldn’t win tonight. Grim topic. Grim speech. Grim reality. Read more
Reracked: Bush/Rumsfeld could have gotten Bin Laden in 2001
… but of course, they let him get away:
A Senate Foreign Relations Committee report issued this weekend says that al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden “was within our grasp” when he was “cornered” in the forbidding mountains of Tora Bora in December, 2001 under intense U.S. bombardment.
… The Senate report says that while bin Laden was writing his last will and testament on December 14, “Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected.” Read more
Les Gelb explains, endorses, Obama’s new Afghan strategy
Over at The Daily Beast, Foreign policy expert Lesley Gelb explains what he has learned from insiders about President Obama’s new Afghanistan strategy, and gives it the thumbs up: Read more
Chris Matthews vs. the Neocons, round two
In case you missed it, tonight, Chris Matthews went on night two of his tirade against neocons who are all for war, but not for fighting. Watch:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
In case you missed it: Ron Reagan Jr. (and Chris Matthews) vs. neocon Frank Gaffney
Fresh off his black tie fete for our four times draft deferred, hawkish former vice president, Dick Cheney, and his former deputy, the still-convicted Scooter Libby, (in which Dick Cheney accused the Obama administration of “dithering” on Afghanistan,) Frank Gaffney tried to give as good as he got on “Hardball” yesterday, even telling the son of the president Gaffney purportedly idolizes that Ron Reagan Jr’s father “would be ashamed” of him. But in this clip, watch as Chris Matthews serves him up, and Ron Reagan proves that he really is the son and namesake of America’s John Wayne president:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Of course, behind the above thumping is the very sobering fact that Mr. Gaffney was among a coterie of neoconservatives who served George W. Bush that pre-cooked meal that was the Iraq war, costing more than 4,000 American servicemen and women their lives, not to mention hundreds of allied troops and countless thousands of Iraqis. Ronald Reagan, meanwhile, essentially silenced the neocons, most of whom worked for his administration in some capacity, mostly nestled within the Department of Defense, because they couldn’t stop themselves pushing for him to go to war — and that would be thermonuclear war — with the Soviet Union. Read more
Midnight of the golpistas
South Florida Republican Congressmen Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (C), Lincoln (Back) and Mario Diaz-Balart (L) speak during a press conference 02 August, 2006. AFP PHOTO/Roberto Schmidt, Getty Images
Miami’s triad of anti-Castro pugilists, never ones to let a little coup d’etat stand between them and their love of right wing governance, traveled to Honduras yesterday to lend their support to the coup-installed government there, and surprise! They got there just in time for the conveniently timed “repeal” by the Roberto Micheletti “government” of its wee lil’ crackdown on its own population and media, including the shutting down of opposition radio stations, plus the beatings and the tear gasings, and the … you know … right wing coup stuff…! Read more
Jim DeMint, Honduras, and Waterloo
Sen. Jim DeMint (center) - acting in contravention to his own government on foreign soil?
If you are of the belief that the extreme right wing in this country is now in open and perilously close to treasonous rebellion against the sitting government of the United States, having essentially admitted that their patriotism is limited to the periods in American history when a Republican happens to be president (something which, by the way, is fundamentally incompatible with patriotism) this story will not dissuade you from that notion, particularly since it comes on the heels of a prominent, “regular columnist” of the conservative right (since demoted by NewsMax to an “unpaid blogger,” but with his own byline on the site…) writing this:
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
… and not being chastised for it by his fellow travelers on the right, except for a Senator from the former Confederacy, of all people (the increasingly lonely in his sanity, Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham.) With that as the backdrop, the news that Graham’s fellow Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, is traveling this weekend to Honduras, on a “fact finding trip” that’s actually a thinly disguised mission to support the beneficiary and financiers of a real military coup is chilling, to say the least. From Steve Clemons, via TPMC:
Jim DeMint’s Coup?
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has announced that he is heading down to Honduras to encourage those who helped fund and supported the coup against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to resist American pressure to return Zelaya to office.
The US Department of State has begun to revoke the visas of wealthy supporters of the military coup.
In other words, Jim DeMint is acting on behalf of, in cahoots with, and against the foreign policy of the United States of America in encouraging post-coup Honduran government officials defy the United States. He is encouraging a political leadership which has no legitimacy and which not recognized by other democracies in the region — while the ousted President makes cell phone UN General Assembly statements from a couch-bed in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa.
A US Senator alone does not make the America’s foreign policy, and working against the policies of the United States in collaboration with foreign officials. . .well. . .there are words that come to mind to describe this behavior, but I want to be civil towards the Senator.
But let me be less blunt. Should we require Senator DeMint to register with the Foreign Agents Registration office at the Department of Justice?
The answer, of course, is yes, for reasons I’ll explain at the end of this post. And in addition, someone in the media should inquire as to whether the Senator associates himself with the rhetoric of John L. Perry, the right wing (fifth) columnist who wrote the above-referenced outline for a military overthrow of the United States government. Sadly, it seems not unreasonable to wonder whether DeMint shares Perry’s sentiments, and whether he might be heading to Honduras searching not for facts, but for advice. Read more
Ralph Peters keeps smearing Private Bergdahl, with O’Reilly’s help
… with the help of fellow douchebag Bill O’Reilly, last night. And he and O’Reilly don’t even bother to address Peters’ fantasies about the Taliban murdering an American soldier. In fact, Peters has apparently changed his mind, at least about the murder … Oh, and O’Reilly has “been to Afghanistan,” mostly likely in full G.I. Joe gear … right??? Watch:
Peters claims that he has talked to a “senior military person.” Why do I get the feeling that person is in his mirror… Meanwhile, 23 members of Congress from both parties have sent a letter to Roger Ailes:
“As members of Congress and veterans of the United States Armed Forces, it was with incredulity and disgust that we watched Fox News Strategic Analyst Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters (Ret.) suggest on your airwaves that Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl, “abandoned his buddies, abandoned his post, and just walked off,” and stated that, if this is true, ‘the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills.’”
… “We demand an apology to PFC Bergdahl’s family and to the thousands of soldiers who put their lives on the line for our country. As a member of the military family, Mr. Peters should measure his remarks and remember that the United States will never abandon one of its own.”
And one Congressman, Eric Massa, wants O’Reilly and Peters fired. Yeah. Good luck with that. We’re talking Roger Ailes…
So what have actual reporters been able to find out? Rick Sanchez reached out to actual military leaders, as did NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski, senior Pentagon corespondent from NBC. Here’s what they had to say:
Sanchez: “Is the military saying that he’s a deserter in any way? We have checked. No, not at all.”
Miklaszewski: “senior Pentagon and military officials have ruled that out entirely, they say there is no evidence that he is a deserter. … They also point out that remarks like that are not the least bit helpful and in fact could endanger Pfc Bergdahl.”
Watch Rick’s rant. He also digs into Peters’ background, which apparently doesn’t include having ever been in combat (he tells O’Reilly he has been “on patrols.” Hm…
Go Rick!
Flashback: Peters once styled himself a defender of soldiers being “smeared” by the New York Times. Ah, irony.
Meanwhile, former SERE trainer and intelligence expert Malcolm Nance comes to Private Bergdahl’s defense:
Despite the nature of the conflict, Bergdahl is not a prisoner of war – he is a terrorist hostage. The difference is important. The United States government classifies persons held against their will in several different categories, depending on the captor and the circumstances of conflict. In a war where one state is a signatory of the Geneva Convention, the soldiers taken off the battlefield are prisoners of war. In an insurgency war against irregular and unlawful battlefield combatants – bandits, terrorists or even armed civilians or vigilantes – soldiers captured are considered hostages. …
… Like all hostages, Bergdahl is under immense psychological stress. His fate rests on the unknown and his life and freedom are in the hands of others. Already, he has managed to make it well past a point where other, more hardnosed soldiers would have been killed.
And:
Barring a demonstrated history of joining and fighting for the Taliban, second-guessing Bergdahl’s behavior and statements – as some commentators like Fox News analyst Ralph Peters are already doing – is pointless. Peters’ on-air rant on Sunday, essentially daring the terrorists to kill an American serviceman (with the caveat that they should do so “if” he turns out to be a deserter), was disgraceful. No matter what the circumstances of capture, this type of fiery talk denigrates the memory of everyone who has ever died at the hands of a terrorist.
This is the very type of macho rhetoric we train SERE students to avoid. Civilian authorities and unit commanders must withhold judgment of what a hostage does under duress until after repatriation.
Amen.
Connect
Book deals
Links
Finalist: Best Liberal Blog
Poll
Loading ...
