This doesn’t exactly sound like things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan to me:
President Hamid Karzai offered Saturday to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks and give the militants a high position in a government ministry as a way to end the rising insurgency in Afghanistan….
More here. So much for this from Dick Cheney back in 2001:
We made it very clear we want Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar and their senior leadership. And if they’re taken alive we expect to take custody of them.
In case everyone has some sort of amnesia about just what sorts of thug and repressive behavior happened under Taliban rule in Afghanistan, just spend some time here and here, just for starters.
And, just as a reminder, who is Mullah Omar? Well, this ought to refresh your memory. After the horrific losses on 9/11, we had an unprecedented level of support from nations that had never before fully cooperated with us, intelligence in-roads among any number of nations that had previously been closed to us absent subterfuge, and a huge opening for a conversation about moderation versus zealotry and violence across the broad spectrum of religion and culture. Instead, we followed our President’s obsession with Saddam down a budgetary and resource quagmire of a rabbit hole. And the Taliban and al qaeda continue their march back to power while we slip further and further down in influence across the globe. If you think this isn’t going to cost us for generations to come, you aren’t thinking about it hard enough.
Heckuva job, Bushie.
(H/T to Atrios for the link to McCarthy.)
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Good morning!
Conservatives have no conscience, nor do they have a memory. They are beneath contempt.
Is George Bush stupid? Seriously.
We just lost the Afghan war were negotiating a surrender/peace agreement Bush couldn’t even hold the fight until the end of his term!
His only hope for the History books now is if Mullah Omar does not take the deal and the fighting continues until after his term is over.
If you want to know how BushCo snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan, a good place to start is Not a Good Day To Die, by Sean Taylor, a reporter at that well known pinko rag, Army Times.
Maybe this is why W bought the ranch in Paraguay:
Mullah Omar – in his own words
Wednesday September 26, 2001
The Guardian
This12-minute interview with Mullah Omar Mohammad, the Taliban leader, was conducted in Pashtu for the publicly-funded radio channel Voice of America. The broadcast was pulled last Friday, following objections from the US deputy secretary of state and senior officials of the National Security Council.
Voice of America interviewer: Why don’t you expel Osama bin Laden?
Omar: This is not an issue of Osama bin Laden. It is an issue of Islam. Islam’s prestige is at stake. So is Afghanistan’s tradition.
Article continues
VOA: Do you know that the US has announced a war on terrorism?
Omar: I am considering two promises. One is the promise of God, the other is that of Bush. The promise of God is that my land is vast. If you start a journey on God’s path, you can reside anywhere on this earth and will be protected… The promise of Bush is that there is no place on earth where you can hide that I cannot find you. We will see which one of these two promises is fulfilled.
You know despite his thin veneer of gravitas ‘Shooter’ Cheney is without doubt the dumbest fuck on the planet.
Yes, he’s even dumber than Preznint Lyme Disease.
First we negotiate with Mullah Omar? Whats next Peace with Ossama? Just how bad are things? Bush is oblivious to reality so what top secret bad news has punctured his bubble? This is scary!
Has anybody read Sy Hersh’s new article yet? No linky at this end of the toobz.
Maybe they were for capturing Mullah Omar before they were against it.
Anyone care to guess if this flip-flopping will go noticed by our completely corrupt media?
Waccamaw @ 9
http://www.newyorker.com/repor…..fact_hersh
Waccamaw at 9 — Here’s the link to the latest Hersh piece. It just went up and I just started reading it.
These terrrishts are hard to find. Let’s talk about my daughters wedding instead.
-The Decider
as bad as the taliban is, i don’t think one can make the argument that people like dostum are any better (and maybe worse) – who we allied with in order to attack the taliban and then made part of the government.
as bad as any regime is, i wish we would learn that that doesn’t give us the moral right to attack the people of the country… if not for any other reason than it’s quite possible to make things worse.
as far as i can see, what we’ve done to afghanistan is no better than what we’ve done to iraq.
some day i hope we’ll get past the myth that using our military to start a war is a force for good.
Loo Hoo. @ 3
Yes.
Another example of simple answers to simple (rhetorical) quesitons.
Here are the first ten items on the list from the link from Christy’s post
Taliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the:
1- Complete ban on women’s work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul.
2- Complete ban on women’s activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).
3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.
4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors.
5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls’ schools into religious seminaries.)
6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe.
7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.
8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.
9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).
10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).
Elliott @ 16 –
yeah, but take a look a dostum and tell me he’s better.
Of course, the question is what, if anything, we should do:
- about the Taliban coming back to power in Afghanistan (or their policies)
- about Darfur
- about the killings and repression in Burma
- about women being treated like chattel in Colorado City
- about the ethnic cleansing in Iraq
- about nuclear proliferation
- about the repression in Zimbabwe?
There are many horrible situations in the world. Do we use military power? In some? Which ones? What is left, anyway, of our military strength after the Iraq adventure?
Do we use economic sanctions? Ineffective UN human rights hearings and the toothless visit of an emissary?
Is it possible to have a policy with some sort of consistency?
:(
Now I’m really ready for sleep. l8rs
The mainstream media keeps reminding us that “The American people are looking for a leader who comes across as tough, one who’ll protect them.” And they get all homoerotic when the speak of the manliness of the swaggering dry-drunk ex-cheerleader who now inhabits the White House.
How about clever? Clever leaders win wars.
How about wise? Wise leaders know which wars to fight?
How about law abiding? Law abiding leaders know that wars of aggression are crimes against humanity under senate-ratified treaties and international law.
And how about “really is” as opposed to “comes across as”?
in case i wasn’t clear in my above comments… i think we had every right and responsibility to go after OBL and others responsible for 911, but not to invade and occupy afghanistan.
selise @ 17
I can’t tell you that.
he’s hideous
Prof @ 18
and is it possible to try to be creative and think of other options?
wigwam @ 20
I think you’re on to something here. Important distinction.
Prof — And wouldn’t it be nice to think that we had actually asked any of those questions instead of just shouting “yee haw” and jumping into a slackassed “plan” with no real planning to it? SIGH
Christy – I just finished reading the Sy Hersh piece, and I can’t help but feel very uncomfortable about the situation.
The quote that really hit home was the analyst comparing it to fall 2002, when everyone was moved over to the Iraq desk, experience and competence be damned.
I fear we may see things degrade before they improve.
I wonder if this bit of betrayal will be enough to turn some or all the 30%ers against Bush? Just how blind to the mind control can a person be? How can any Righty be expected to shift gears and support their beloved leader after he makes peace with an enemy the MSM and Righty blogs have told him to hate so often and so much?
To be honest I don’t like the guy at all either! But the GOP faithful can’t accept this and if the negotiations succed then they won’t be able to ignore it!
There’s a member of dkos whose handle is:
DickCheneybeforeheDicksyou.
i think what we need is to have that conversation at home and not (yet) in afghanistan… and part of the conversation must include facing what our own role has been in fostering extremism and violence. if we can figure out how to address our own zealotry and violence (are our blindness to it), then we might have something to say to others.
given what we did to create the extremism in afghanistan, i don’t think we have any legitimacy in telling others what to do about it.
wigwam @ 20
Tweety and the rest of the MSM just need to find a Man. I think it would help them get over their crush on bad boys. Well bad as in stupid, as in a crook who deserves to get caught, bad as in mean, lying sack of…
Elliott @ 22
yeah, me neither. both bad.
my point is only that that we can’t use the evilness of the taliban as justification for dropping cluster bombs from 30,000 ft on the people of afganistan.
it’s like bush using the evilness of hussain to justify attacking iraq.
wigwam @ 20 -
amen!
selise @ 31
Oh, I certainly didn’t post it a reason to drop cluster bombs! Never! Cluster bombs, never.
Only wanted to emphasize what kind of lives women are allowed to live under the Taliban.
The only admirable thing about the Taliban pre-9/11 was their eradication of the opium poppy fields.
Now they’re in this business up to their ears.
Al Qaeda is now a heroin smuggling operation.
Most of the heroin destined for American veins comes from Latin America.
According to my crystal ball (on a roll of late), expect a surge of Afghani heroin thru New Orleans over the next several years…
(Old Blackwater, keep on roll’n…)
Thunderbird & Christy -
Thankee, thankee!
I was outside choppin’ up fish heads for crab bait…..how’s that for a weird activity to take my attention away from the Lake?
selise @ 21
Yeah! and Pakistan should either hand Ossama over or just admit that they don’t control that part of their country and let us take him!
A nuclear Power that can’t control what goes on in its own borders and is afraid to send troops into its own country to capture a criminal is an embarrasment!
It would be one thing if they couldn’t find him but they gave up and wouldn’t let us go after him!
Elliott @ 33 –
completely agree.
I work at the Library of Congress, proximate to the U.S. Capitol. The streets and atmosphere are pure East Germany. Cops stop city freaking city buses, just to board them momentarily and look around for no reason except obedience/fear training.
It’s amazing to think that president cheney would like me blown away some morning, for his further aims. but it’s the truth.
Billions over Baghdad discusses the wasted/lost money in Iraq. Vanity Fair.
at least $9 billion has gone missing, unaccounted for, in a frenzy of mismanagement and greed. Following a trail that leads from a safe in one of Saddam’s palaces to a house near San Diego, to a P.O. box in the Bahamas, the authors discover just how little anyone cared about how the money was handled.
by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele
Here’s ten more:
Taliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the:
11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.
12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman’s voice).
13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman’s footsteps.)
14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.
15- Ban on women’s presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.
16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.
17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.
18- Ban on women’s wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are “sexually attracting colors.”
19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.
20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place.
So how bout Bin Laden to run Afghanistan?
NYT has a good editorial up about the supreme court and it’s four “conservatives” who, according to the times, are not following any theory of judicial reasoning- but rather are voting as conservative republicans..good stuff- but depressing.
rw at 41 — Yes, read that and then let’s talk “activist judges.” SIGH
completely OT – some repug woman on the stephanupolus show (who I think works for the McCain campaign) as a way of explaining McCain’s poor polling numbers just said, “McCain has never been good at running a big organization like his campaign staff!”
which begs the question, “if he can’t run a “big organization” like a presidential campaign, how can we expect him to run the country?”
ooo – big mistake on campaign woman’s part!
We’ve been discussing this. What a crazy concept.
what I want to know is, how does any Taliban guy ever get a fucking date? jesus, they’re so freakin busy thinking of things to despise about women. their bodies, minds, even voices. why don’t they just mass murder these evil beings and be done with it?
OldCoastie @ 43
Says it all about thug candidates, the people who work for them and the people who support them.
Wait ’til tomorrow…….there’ll either be a retraction or a whole lot of whining about how “her words were taken out of context.” ;-(
Good thread, Christy!
At this point, it’s all about speaking the King’s English…
Or, to be accurate, about buttfucking the King’s English until it’s crosseyed.
20 minutes ago, this headline was up on the YahooNewsPage:
Baghdad: The Bush administration said Sunday a U.S. Senate resolution that could lead to a division of the country into sectarian or ethnic territories
“would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed.”
I mean, for anyone in, or supportive OF, george bush and his policies, to gum these vicious, insane, words, makes George Owell’s valid and useful concept of “doublethink” sound like the babbling of a drooling infant.
I don’t know WHERE the statement was made, but if there was anyone present who makes their living using words, or even CARES about words and the purposes, would it have been asking to much for them to stand up yell out:
“WHAT THE PLU-PERFECT HELL DO YOU THINK IS GOING ON THERE NOW, YOU FUCKING CIPHER???”
Here’s nine more:
Taliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the:
21- Modification of all place names including the word “women.” For example, “women’s garden” has been renamed “spring garden”.
22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.
23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.
24- Ban on male tailors taking women’s measurements or sewing women’s clothes.
25- Ban on female public baths.
26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated “males only” (or “females only”).
27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa.
28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women.
29- Ban on women’s pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops.
Loo Hoo. @ 3
Hard-headed, which is just a nice way of saying – ‘you’re fucking stupid!’
Waccamaw @ 9
I see someone posted teh New Yorker link. Der Spiegel had this with Sy Hersh as well.
I give up. It’s just too much.
I recommend The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. It gives calm and perspective.
Bush has created a supreme court that could last for a decade- they’re goopers and they’re young- and they vote their party not the law. Scalia at 71 is the oldest. Unless he croaks early- he’s around for another 15 years..
Sharkbabe @ 38
Nowadays there appears to be a “security” war against common Americans, where anyone who steps the tiniest bit out of line (wears the “wrong” button to a Congressional hearing, takes up too much time at a Q&A, doesn’t completely clean up spilled cake) is viciously brutalized.
But there is one huge factor in our favor: cell phone cameras. And YouTube.
They are certainly watching us — but we’re also watching them.
SharkBabe; Howzit? :o)
Misplaced or warped testosterone has ALWAYS been prime fertilizer for growing zealots and fanatics.
Who wants to go out and kill people when they’re getting their ashes hauled sweetly and often? :o)
Bush is probably of at least average intelligence. He’s no dumber than- say- Gerald Ford..THAT’S not his problem..his problem is that he has NONE of the equipment that’s required to be an executive. He hates analytical thought- he can’t deal with disagreements among experts- he detests ambiguity- he has a bias for pet solutions- he has no patience- he can’t lead a discussion- etc. He further has poor judgement and an inability to express himself regarding complex issues. He’s a fuckin mess- and he’s fucked up everything he touches- but to say “He’s stupid” is to way oversimplify the situation.
Here’s the US citizenship test. Good luck Firepups. Fyi, I rec’d 100% and I didn’t have my cheat sheet with me. I think they could’ve included a fill-in ‘name that state’ quiz and past and current names of government reps, current supreme ct. justices, etc…but then Katie Couric and Bryan Jennings would be working for The Star or People magazine
http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..triviaquiz
Christy upstairs with a new post on the Sy Hersh piece
Thunderbird @ 26
My favorite is THIS:
“There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.” (boldface is mine)
So, Cheney and Bush don’t care about the other Repubs? All those folks who have been hewing to the line for them? Taking the heat for them? Swallowing the crap for them? And who will lose their next election because of them? MMM, I wonder if anyone has any Democratic Party sign up cards in their desk in Congress to start handing out because Damn..if I were a Repub in Congress right about now, I’d be ready to jump ship for sure.
am i the only one who thinks karzi might be right to have peace talks with omar?
selise — Having peace talks with Omar is akin to us promoting Dostum as an agent of peace. It may be a logistical necessity at any one juncture, but it doesn’t make it the right choice either over the long term. And cutting deals with the Taliban may bring momentary peace in the very, very short term — but what have you bought for yourself over the long term by giving them governmental legitimacy? You think they are going to throw over their zealotry any time soon, or their mysoginistic treatment of women? Or that they won’t try to leverage getting a foot in the door to a wholesale grab at power as time moves forward?
It’s a risky gambit, and the sort that got the US putting Saddam Hussein in power way back in the day as a reaction to Iran — and look where that got everyone.
rwcole @ 55
rwcole @ 55
That could be argued until the cockroaches become extinct.
He could have a 60 IQ or less, he could be a narcissistic sociopath, he could be a religious fanatic where God/the screaming voice in his head told him to start Armageddon, he could be a misanthrope, a nihilist, in love with perpetual war — or any combination of the above or more.
We’ll never really know.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 60
completely disagree with this statement. talking with enemies is not the same thing as promoting them or anyone else as an agent of peace. it is only what it is… talking.
we, rightly i think, comdemn bush when he is unwilling to to negotiate with enemies like north korea or iran. how is this different? omar is karzi’s enemy. is it wrong to talk? and even more, do we have the right to tell karzi what to do? isn’t he in a better position to judge what actions might be helpful for his country? or did we install him to be our puppet?
and christy, as much as it pains me to write it, omar already has some legitimacy, it’s not something we can really “give” (especially with our history there)… it comes from the people or not at all.
karzi having peace talks with omar is nothing like us installing dostum with invasion and bombs. the two (military violence and peace talks) are just in no way the same thing.
in any event, i’m not saying that we ought to be installing omar. that’s not for us to do. or even that karzi ought to be holding peace talks with omar. i am saying that karzi might be doing the right thing to hold peace talks.
i guess we do disagree.
selise @ 59
No, you are not the only one.
The reality is Afghans resent the continued occupation as the NATO presence is viewed given that there has been so little ‘development’ in any sphere that matters and scores of people are getting killed. Ther Taliban has morphed almost into a nationalist movement of resistance against foreign occupation, particularly among the Pashtuns, the biggest ethnic group in Afghanistan.
Karzai and Masharraf both know that they have to reach a deal with the ‘insurgents’ just the Brits had to negotiate with the IRA in Northern Ireland. You cannot usher in peaceful times through military means in asymmetric war situations as Vietnam demonstrated very effectively. Sy Hersh pointed this out in the interview featured in Der Spiegel (linked in an earlier post by Wordsmith), that lesson was not learned. The Brits realised that in India as did the Aafrikaners in South Africa when they released Mandela and negotiated with the ANC to end apartheid.
Bush-Cheney administration does not not only give a rat’s ass (Sy Hersh’s words) about long term national or party specific strategic interests, it is too atavistic in its reactive responses to be creative.
Re CHS @ 60
I agree with selise. We must stop demonising our perceived enemies. This does not mean Omar or Dostum or any of the other warlords are likeable characters. You do not have to like your enemy(ies) but to fight a destructive war which cannot be ‘won’ is not constructive either. That battle is now going to be a long one. The Muslim world feels victimised and many in that world take it as an attack on Islam. If we do not talk to them about the forces that shape this world view, how are we ever going to address the issues that need to be addressed?
Neither Gandhi nor MLK nor Mandela ever demonised their opponents nor bore any rancour towards them – an essential principle of ahimsa – no vengeful retribution.
Karzi is in negotiation with Mullah Omar, I was of the opinion that Mullah Omar, Bin Laden and Ayman Zwarhari was responsible for the planning of 9/11, and that they were all wanted dead or alive.
This has got to be a ploy to caputre Bin Laden…. GOP needs a booster for ‘08.
Well, here’s an answer.
President Hamid Karzai’s office said Sunday that there is “serious debate” among some Taliban fighters about laying down arms, while a spokesman for the militants said they will “never” negotiate with Afghan authorities until foreign troops leave.
As for this:
Demonizing our enemies is like making Iraqiis the enemy, as has been done. It’s where we twist and make an entire people what they are not. Now it’s the Iranians based on the idiot who’s their president.
Sorry – this is NOT the case with the Taliban – they are demons. They need no demonization. What they’ve done to women and girls alone gives them nothing in the way of mercy in MY book – EVER. Perhaps you’ve forgotten or perhaps you never knew. Go to the RAWA site for a refresher.
Apparently the link didn’t go in like it was supposed to; it’s here.
chs, ‘heckuva job, bushie’ made me imagine the quote coming from osama whatshisface.
far more congratulatory, i think. also, makes me wonder who’s on top? osama or cheney. who’s on the bottom?
peas!
Wordsmith @ 67
would that be the same rawa that was against our invasion?
the reason it’s a bad idea to demonize another group of people is not because we think they’re not acting like demons. the reason is that it interfers with our ability to make rational decisions…. and to see that our actions have to potential to make things even worse.
one can despise everything the taliban stands for and still think that 1) peace talks might be a good idea and 2) it should be up to the afghanis to decide, not us.