Texas Rainmaker » Know Thy Enemy…

Know Thy Enemy…
September 29th, 2006 3:24 pm

Can you tell them apart?

1. “What the United States tastes today is a very small thing compared to what we have tasted for tens of years. Our nation has been tasting this humiliation and contempt for more than 80 years.”

2. “Here in the United States, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent. This country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human. And we are still paying a price today,”

3. “They champion falsehood, support the butcher against the victim, the oppressor against the innocent child.”

4. “There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud?”

5. “Our men and women in uniform are still paying with their lives for this misguided war in Iraq. No president who misleads the country on the need for war deserves to be re-elected.”

6. “Bush alleged that his troops have spread freedom in the world, that Iraq had achieved democracy thanks to his coalition forces, that his government has crushed more than two-thirds of al Qaeda and that…Afghanistan is secure,. The leader of the most powerful country on earth is not embarrassed to say these deceptions and lies. It’s gotten to the stage that he can ridicule his listeners to this degree.”

7. “There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can’t think it can’t be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear, the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission.”

8. “The president was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend,”

9. “What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.”

10. “Can’t you be honest at least once in your life and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq under the pretext of the presence of nuclear weapons there and under the pretext of al Qaeda’s connections with Saddam Hussein, following which evidence proved that you intentionally lied and misled?”

11. “Iraq can not be won militarily.”

12. “Why don’t you tell them how many million citizens of America and its allies you intend to kill in search of the imaginary victory and in breathless pursuit of the mirage towards which you are driving your people’s sons in order increase your profits?”

13. “We won’t allow you to take anymore money out of social programs to finance Halliburton to rebuild the Gulf States: there is no money. Our bank account is empty. George, this is our rainy day and you have failed us miserably. Stop pouring money into the pockets of the war profiteers and into building permanent bases in Iraq.”

Sources:

1. Osama Bin Laden
2. Bill Clinton
3. Osama Bin Laden
4. Ted Kennedy
5. Ted Kennedy
6. Ayman al-Zawahiri
7. Howard Dean
8. Howard Dean
9. John Kerry
10. Ayman al-Zawahiri
11. John Murtha
12. Ayman al-Zawahri
13. Cindy Sheehan

40 Comments »

Wow! This is brilliant! No, I can’t tell them apart, which really is awful! I knew Clinton, Kennedy, Dean, Kerry and Murtha were asshats, but to not be able to tell them from our enemies, well, that makes them our enemies too, which is something I’ve been saying for awhile, but I didn’t realize it was quite this bad! GRRRRRRRR!

Comment by Gayle — 6:35 am
Your daily blogs are great TRM. I read them everyday but seldom have time to post anything brilliant. The Muslims/DemoncRats are so similar it’s scary.

Thanks for the great blogs.

Comment by Sandy — 11:59 am
Jason, My post today directs everyone over here. The similarity of comments is simply astounding when the sources are revealed. I still haven’t figured out how to send a TrackBack using HaloScan. Maybe one day it will work for me.

Comment by Old Soldier — 3:56 pm
I would be interested in time frames. That is something I will have to compare.

Because the question begs an answer to…

Are the Terrorists using Democrat talking points…

Or are the Democrats using Terrorist propaganda for their talking points….

Comment by sanity — 5:24 pm
Yipes! #4 poses thee question, who is using which talking points. I pray we don’t find out through experience.

Comment by Judith — 8:08 pm
You could do the same thing to Republicans. Take their comments about God and judges, and they are indistinguishable from the Taliban. And you could take men like George Allen and Mark Foley and they would indistinguishable from racists and pedophiles. Oh wait…

Comment by Nate — 8:58 pm
Really, Nate? Funny, I missed the speech when Bush called for the beheading of innocent men in the name of allah.

And re: Mark Foley, I agree. That guy is one sick puppy and I’m glad he’s history.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 9:19 pm
“You could do the same thing to Republicans. Take their comments about God and judges, and they are indistinguishable from the Taliban.”

That, Nate, is called a straw man. The original topic compared a political party to an enmey whith whom we are at war. You know, bombs falling, gun fire, soldiers being beheaded…

Funny, I didn’t recall the Taliban having three seperate disctinct elements of government of which one is the judiciary, the other two obviously being representative legislature and an executive element. I guess the Taliban was actually more efficient; an imam or mullah could issue decrees, judge someone and even carry out the execution (people are always found guilty in Islam).

Dirty politicians reside on both sides of the isle, Nate, so throwing stones will only break your own glass walls.

For someone who fancies himself enlightened and who measures things with moral ethical fiber, you sure showed a different side in that comment.

Comment by Old Soldier — 5:56 am
It’s a little bit late, and a little too ironic, to see you singing the virtues of divided government, OS. Where were these views last week when legislation was passed giving the executive branch the right to take anybody- foreign combatant or American citizen alike- and charge them with abetting terrorism, hold a trial in which they aren’t informed of the charges against them or allowed to see the evidence, and then locked away forever. No judicial review, no legislative oversight.

But I guess all the GOP leaderships needs to do is trot out stories of how nasty the terrorists are and you come running to take refuge in the power of a monarch, as though only he can save you from the bad guys. Forgive me for not believing you when you cite the virtues of divided government.

Comment by Nate — 12:00 pm
Ha! DemoncRats! I haven’t heard an insult that clever since my six-year-old nephew called my a poopiehead.

And in regards to some of those quotes… do you really disagree with all of them? Because if that’s the case, then you really need to learn to think critically, and not just regurgitate whatever you heard from some asshole from a small group of false republicans that has built its power based on ignorance and knee-jerk reactionism.

Comment by andy — 12:57 pm
I guess the virtues of a dictatorship government such as communism, auto-theocratic and such must be in liberals’ favor nowadays?

Comment by mcconnell — 1:39 pm
“Where were these views last week when legislation was passed giving the executive branch the right to take anybody- foreign combatant or American citizen alike- and charge them with abetting terrorism, hold a trial in which they aren’t informed of the charges against them or allowed to see the evidence, and then locked away forever.”

I supported the legislation that gives the prseident the tools necessary to prosecute this war against radical Jihadists. How about providing an example of an “American citizen” being wisked away, never to be heard of again. If you refer to old Johnny Taliban (caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban), he was brouhgt into the US court system - not sent to Gitmo. (Although I would have supported his being sent to Gitmo.)

“…stories of how nasty the terrorists are…” If you have other ideas about the character and nature of our self-declared enemy, why don’t you go try to “talk” or “reason” with them. They might listen to someone whose Party’s rhetoric is right out of their propaganda pages.

Once upon a time you at least tried to present a reasoned argument. Now you are merely echoing BDS rhetoric and talking points. Any credibility you may have had is quickly running down the drain.

Comment by Old Soldier — 1:42 pm
OS: The legislation was passed this past week. You want examples from this weekend?

British soldiers were nasty in 1776. So were German soldiers in WWII and the North Vietnamese. But for some reason it has taken the Jihadists to fully bring out the latent cowardice in American conservatives. They just don’t make conservatives of courage and integrity like Eisenhower and Goldwater anymore, and it’s too bad, because they were a superior breed. They understood you don’t become the enemy in order to defeat the enemy.

Comment by Nate — 2:43 pm
Nate, you can back as far in this conflict as you want to provide an example of ”an American citizen being charged with abetting terrorism, a trial held in which they aren’t informed of the charges against them or allowed to see the evidence, and then locked away forever.”

The basic difference between us is I have faith in good people and you have no faith in mankind. When you look at the US, all you see you view as negative.

If you think that the US was lily white during all of our conflicts you have a warped sense of history. There were some very untoward actions conducted by some very angry soldiers during most all the wars.

Our revolutionary war was a sever break from accepted land warfare. Hiding behind rocks and trees to engage the enemy was considered cowardice. Using flame throwers to clear spider holes and caves in the Pacific islands was not exceptionally humanitarian. Dropping atomic bombs on two Japanese cities that had little to no military value was also not very humanitarian when viewed through today’s bleeding heart liberal rose colored glasses. Sometimes to effectively fight fire it takes fire, not just water.

You have a misplaced sense of morality that is anchored in visceral feelings and emotions - not reality. The president went to the Congress for legislation to support his war effort. View the vote - almost two-thirds voted in favor of the bill. That includes some Democrats who either are uncomfortable this election cycle or are committed to winning this war. I prefer to believe the latter.

“But for some reason it has taken the Jihadists to fully bring out the latent cowardice in American conservatives.”

Conservatives have never been afraid to take on the tough issues nor have they failed to recognize the task at hand and get their backs into the labor. If there is any cowardice displayed, it is the hand wringing bleeding heart liberals who don’t believe the Jihadists really want to kill us or force us to convert to Islam. It is the liberals who want to return to 9-10 and ignore the little terrorist actions that take place daily around the world. It is the conservatives that are saying lead, follow or get the hell out of the way; but don’t be part of the problem. It is the liberals that don’t want to fight a war because they have no idea how to fight a war. Best let the grown-ups handle this one, Nate.

Comment by Old Soldier — 3:59 pm
I have made clear that the reasons for supporting detainee policies with due process are because I think they are strategically superior. It so happens they are also morally superior, which makes sense to me because I do think good does ultimately triumph over evil, even if sometimes it takes awhile. It is you who have lost your faith that we can will while maintaining our moral integrity, you who have no faith that our goodness is an asset.

Don’t you ever stop to wonder why, even while the US was employing all these “non lily-white” tactics in warfare, we nonetheless clung to treating prisoners humanely? Do you think it was because Washingon was a bleeding heart coward?

And one more thing for everyone: say what you want about bleeding heart liberals, but they aren’t cowards. (I don’t consider myself a bleeding heart, but I know many.) They often support stupid policies, and they think violence can be reasoned away, so you can call them naive, but they don’t do so out of cowardice.

On the other hand, the very essence of a consvative is to conserve what he or she has. This desire to safeguard and protect often manifests itself in a fear of change, a fear of the outsider: hence the neat triple hysteria among the conservative ranks towards gays, immigrants, and Islamic fundamentalism. Conservatives lash out instincitively to protect what they have always known- the traditional family, a WASP dominated America, a peaceful world in which America is safe from attack. There is nothing wrong with these intstincts, but one would hope that intelligent conservatives pause and take a moment to reflect: do gays really threaten my family? Do Mexican immigrants really harm my country? Do a loosely organized Islamic Jihadists really require us to rethink our entire approach to warfare and justice?

Reason, not fear, should be the basis of our responses to change, and both left and right are vulnerable to making decisions based on the wrong one. And in my view, conservatives are making the wrong decisions more often these days. It didn’t always used to be this way, but ever since 1994 conservatives lost a lot of their moral and rational foundation, instead giving way to a religious bunch of policy extremists. We can do better.

Comment by Nate — 6:00 pm
Nate, everytime you comment you come back with something different from the last set of comments. When you decide to answer my twice asked question, I’ll continue a discourse. Until then…

Comment by Old Soldier — 6:41 pm
Answer Old Soldier’s question, Nate.

Comment by mcconnell — 6:44 pm
Knowing the Enemy is a good theme.

“No Excuses For Terror,” Aaronovitch (UK socialist but in support of the Iraq war effort), TV show that rebuts the “moral right” of “freedom fighters” to attack civillians.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=002205

“The Real Friends of Terror,” Honderich (another UK socialist who proposes that Americans share moral responsiblity for the attacks), the TV show to which Aaronovitch replied on Channel Five in the UK.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15080.htm

If you follow the link to Rabble.ca, you’ll witness the bizarre reaction of Canadian “progressives” to these subjects.

The exercise does more to reveal the enemy both in terms of the actual attackers and in terms of the apologists. Note that Aaronovitch focusses on sections of the hard Left in the UK but points to the creeping influence they have on wider public opinion — starting with the mainstream Left represented by the Labour Party voters.

Have these shows received much attention in your neck of the woods?

* * *

Related –

Genocide Against Muslims?
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=002204

Violence and death through armed force and repression has been far greater within the Arab/Muslim world than what can be attributed to the Palestinean-Israeli conflict. That latter might be responsible for about one-half of one percent of deaths. The over-emphasis on Israel has diverted attention from the much wider problem of Arab-on-Arab and Muslim-on-Muslim violence, for example.

If you follow the link you will see that in bringing this to the attention of “progressives”, I was met with scorn.

Comment by Chairm — 7:38 pm
If I don’t answer your questions it is because they are so obvious, and I don’t feel the need to Google specific links just because you are too lazy to do so. Google Jose Padilla. The guy would be toast under the new laws- we would never know his name, the charges, anything. And who knows, perhaps someone reading the Texas Rainmaker might get fed up with me and tell his friend in the administration that I am abetting terrorists, or worse, as far as the GOP is concerned, aiding Democrats. There is nothing to stop this administration from scooping me up and making me disappear forever. Just because it hasn’t been done before to someone like me means nothing now that the law codifies such actions.

In this thread I layed out all my strategic reasons for opposing torture in comment #27.

http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/09/18/do-noogies-violate-the-geneva-convention/

Look at your comment #30- you say nothing except “your expectations are unreasonable and therefore are invalid.” You don’t bother to address any of the strategy issues I brought up. This is significant, because now you are accusing me on this thread of viewing issues through an exclusively moral lens that ignores the things we need to do to fight- when I have just laid out all the reasons why I think my views help us fight better. This is but one example of you dodging the hard issues.

Comment by Nate — 7:59 pm
Nate, when all John can do is respond to your arguments by calling them “unreasonable and therefore invalid”, you know you’ve hit a nerve that he can’t respond to rationally. This is how he usually responds to me, so don’t feel badly if he accuses you of changing the subject and/or ignoring his common sense questions. When he does this, its nearly always him that is actually guilty of such actions.

Comment by Forrest — 9:36 pm
“On the other hand, the very essence of a consvative is to conserve what he or she has. This desire to safeguard and protect often manifests itself in a fear of change, a fear of the outsider: hence the neat triple hysteria among the conservative ranks towards gays, immigrants, and Islamic fundamentalism. Conservatives lash out instincitively to protect what they have always known- the traditional family, a WASP dominated America, a peaceful world in which America is safe from attack. There is nothing wrong with these intstincts, but one would hope that intelligent conservatives pause and take a moment to reflect: do gays really threaten my family? Do Mexican immigrants really harm my country? Do a loosely organized Islamic Jihadists really require us to rethink our entire approach to warfare and justice?do gays really threaten my family?”

Of course not and I don’t know rational conservative saying they do. But I don’t care to have my tax dollars funding a movement based upon who someone has sex with.

““Do Mexican immigrants really harm my country?”

This isn’t a case of race, so you’re injection of “Mexican” is a red herring. The reference, instead, should be to those who cross the border illegaly from Mexico. They can be from all colors, races, genders, etc. In such a group, there could be those who wish to do us harm. As for whether illegal aliens harm our country… just ask the many victims of their crimes.

“Do a loosely organized Islamic Jihadists really require us to rethink our entire approach to warfare and justice?”

When they can kill 3,000 innocent citizens with a plane ticket and boxcutter, I say yes. If we were to approach these “loosely organized” jihadists with traditional approach to warfare, you’d see our military walking through the streets, frisking everyone that looks suspicious. You’d see tanks at airports and bus stops. You’d see F-15s flying over every small town waiting for the signal to bomb. But obviously such “traditional” approaches to warfare don’t work in this kind of war… at least domestically. Our enemy doesn’t wear a uniform, doesn’t seek out military targets and has no defined “home”. So we must use new resources and methods to seek them out, identify them and neutralize them before they cause harm. If this were a traditional war, we would’ve seen the bombers flying in over the Atlantic to strike New York. We would’ve seen the destroyers off the coast or the armies advancing from the North and South. Instead, we were attacked by some who snuck in or over stayed otherwise visas. We were attacked by a few men who blended into society using our freedoms as a strategy. Innocent citizens died because a few “loosely organized jihadists” targeted an office building to inflict the most possible damage on our civilian population.

It’s funny that you would spend a paragraph trying to criticize conservatism by defining it as an attempt to maintain the status quo and a fear of change… then turn around and argue for maintaining the status quo by demanding that the most important battle of our generation be fought with the same techniques we’ve used in the past. Come on, embrace the change. Change is good. Right?

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 5:54 am
Nate, you may view yourself a scholar or well informed, and you may perceive that your every word is unquestionable. I do not share that same perspective, and do not feel compelled to spend my time researching your claims and statements. I find your insinuation that I am “lazy” because I do not research your claims to be quite insolent.

Jose Padilla (aka Abdullah al-Muhajir) was declared an “illegal enemy combatant.” Had he not been engaged in Islamic Jihadist activities directed against the United States, he probably would not have been declared an illegal enemy combatant. IMHO any “citizen” who sides with and openly acts in accordance with our declared enemy should be treated as an enemy and reap all the associated consequences. All of our law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from a government that is engaged in trying to defeat our enemies.

”And who knows, perhaps someone reading the Texas Rainmaker might get fed up with me and tell his friend in the administration that I am abetting terrorists, or worse, as far as the GOP is concerned, aiding Democrats. There is nothing to stop this administration from scooping me up and making me disappear forever. Just because it hasn’t been done before to someone like me means nothing now that the law codifies such actions.”

Paranoia does not become you. I promise not to turn you in for supporting Democrats; and I doubt very seriously the possibility of President Bush becoming interested in you.

”In this thread I layed out all my strategic reasons for opposing torture in comment #27.”

Did you read Comment #34? But, torture is not at issue in this post. Can we return to topic?

Nate, I’ve answered your questions six ways to Sunday; yet because you don’t like my answers, you shift the subject and start over again. I’m getting tired of chasing your meanderings.

This legislation is good in that it enables the administration to fight the war against radical Jihadists. I do not share your paranoia that innocent citizens will be whisked away for no reason, never to be seen again. I believe extraordinary measures are required to fight an enemy who is willing to die to kill us. I do not believe the interrogation techniques approved by Congress are inhuman and I certainly do not care about what the rest of the world may think of our methods. If they do not like our methods, let them fight our war in compliance with their beliefs. Until that day – they have no say in our struggle to maintain sovereignty and protect our citizens.

Is that clear enough for you, Nate?

Comment by Old Soldier — 8:30 am
Replying to Nate and the liberals who seem to think this administration has somehow taken their rights this is post from my blog and I think it fits….

Leftist in this country claim that Bush has used 9/11 and the war on terror to take our rights away. They claim that anyone who criticizes the administration goes to jail or “disappears in the middle of the night”. Unfortunately, the Dixie Chicks have yet to disappear and George Clooney, Michael Moore, Keith Olberman, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean seem to be on my TV whenever I turn it on verbally attacking Bush and not in jail.

I am not exactly sure what these rights are that the Bush administration has taken away from me but I wish someone would tell me so I could politely ask for them to be returned. I do know which rights the Supreme Court has taken away from me though and know that I am no longer allowed to express my religion in public if it offends someone unless I am calling for the destruction of Israel…then that is ok.

So yes, please tell me what rights Bush has taken away from me so I will be “in the know”; let me know and I will be right there with Moore and Clooney leading the charge against this administration for depriving me of my civil rights.

So please please please please!!! I bet anyone reading this to go to the Bill of Rights and tell me what rights as an American CITIZEN (sorry bleeding heart libs, no matter what you believe foreign terrorist are not subject to the constitution)I have lost.

Comment by Michael — 2:01 pm
What nothing on the Pederast in Congress and the Leader protecting him? I am shocked, NOT! Jason you are a looser!

Comment by thomas — 3:42 pm
I don’t get it thomas, what is Jason loosening?

Comment by Jim U — 5:38 pm
Agreed, OS, let’s go our separate ways again, since we are again at loggerheads. But I think given the names you have called me, I should be allowed to call you lazy or something similarly tame.

Comment by Nate — 5:58 pm
TR-

I wouldn’t say change is good or bad, but it is inevitable. But certain things, I think we would both agree, should not change, or at least they should only chanage under extreme circumstances. We are going to disagree on these things, because of our different political beliefs.

Let’s be honest here: the immigration issue is about Mexicans, and their effect on American culture. It isn’t about terrorism or crime. It’s about a perceived assault on the traditional idea of America, which was carried out against Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, and most other immigrant groups. Now it is the Mexicans. I’m not arguing it isn’t something to take seriously, but I think the current hysterical debate is ridiculous.

I agree that terrorism is a new form of warfare that we need to adapt to. That has nothing to do with junking strategic principles that have stood the test of time and for which there is no proof the replacement policy will do any better.

Overall, the irony of which you speak is noted. I will ponder it further…

Comment by Nate — 9:47 pm
I have some more quotes you should add to the list:

“Approaching counterinsurgency by winning hearts and minds will ultimately be the answer. Military versus insurgency one-to-one doesn’t sound like it can be won.”

He was talking about Afghanistan. The same guy goes on to say that since the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily, it needs to be given seats in the Afghan government. The Taliban needs to be negotiated with, he says.

Comment by endorendil — 12:07 am
Nate, agreed. I also apologize for the insolent comment. Without directly calling anems we both assigned attributes that were less than flattering.

Comment by Old Soldier — 7:38 am
endorendil (#28), a little context goes a long way.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:17 am
Sorry, I didn’t think contexts were needed since they weren’t provided with any of the other quotes.

The senator was taking a trip to Afghanistan (for once apparently not limited to a swanky-hotel-cum-photo-op) when he was briefed on the status of the country. Then he made this speech. He makes the same claim as Murtha did (#11 on your list), saying that the insurgency cannot be beaten militarily. While he was talking about Afghanistan rather than Iraq, the consequences of failure in Afghanistan are probably much worse (and less expected).

The senator apparently agrees at least partially with Al-Zawahiri (#6 on your list) saying that Afghanistan is not only not secure, but sliding back. He goes further in saying that the Taliban need to be brought back in power, that negotiations with those who killed Americans are okay as long as they stop fighting.

I don’t know, seems like he belonged on the list…

Comment by endorendil — 12:52 pm
endorendil, you obviously didn’t click the link I provided… the very reason I provided it was because the context is not what you make it seem to be. Frist was not calling for the return of the Taliban. His explanatory comment was:

Having discussed the situation with commanders on the ground, I believe that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means. Our counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political processes.

As Captain Ed points out (the link you ignored), there is a group called Pashtuns that are not Taliban, but did help the Taliban get into power. They are “moderate” Islamists (if there is such a thing). Convincing them to join a new democracy will hopefully prevent them from joining the ranks of the Taliban. Frist was saying that we need to win the hearts and minds of those whose two choices will be Democracy-rule or Taliban-rule… hence his reference to “potentially sympathetic to the Taliban”.

In this situation, context makes all the difference.

In the above Democrat references, the context is that they believe we can’t win militarily in Iraq, they believe Bush lied, they believe the war is for oil, etc, etc, etc. It’s not a matter of taking them out of context.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 12:57 pm
Frist said that the only way to win is to “assimilate people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government.” Now you can argue that people may call themselves Taliban without really being Taliban, but you might as well discuss what the meaning of “is” is.

Frist’s military defeatism is also unequivocal. He said “Military versus insurgency one-to-one doesn’t sound like it can be won. It sounds to me … that the Taliban is everywhere.”

You may agree or disagree with Frist’s defeatism and whether or not his call to have to Taliban (sorry, “people who call themselves Taliban”) included in the Afghan government will work. But don’t deny that that was what he said. Captain Ed’s quote comes from a damage control press release, in which Frist was furiously backpedaling after having been caught way off the talking points.

Oh, and it wasn’t Frist that said that the US can’t exclude negotiations with the Taliban. That was Mel Martinez (you may want to put him on your list too). But in all fairness, Mel said that those who didn’t want to negotiate should still be defeated militarily.

In any case, if the US went into Afghanistan to “bring [people who call themselves Taliban] into a more transparent type of government” in stead of trying to wipe them from the map, I must have been misreading the news over the past 5 years. “Death to those who harbor terrorists” and all that jazz.

So Frist rightfully belongs on your list, certainly as much as Murtha. At least Murtha never suggested that the US should bring the Baath party back into the Iraqi government.

Comment by endorendil — 3:16 pm
endorendil, since you wouldn’t go to the linked article, I brought Frist’s quotes over here. Perhaps you can spend just a couple minutes reading what Frist actually said versus what a reporter reported. It does seem one can drive a semi-truck through the gaping hole in your argument.

“Frist claims that the report misquotes his remarks.”

(That first quote is from the blog owner. The following is Frist’s words.)

“I’m currently overseas visiting our troops in Afghanistan, but I wanted to take a moment to address an Associated Press story titled, “Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov’t.” The story badly distorts my remarks and takes them out of context.

“First of all, let me make something clear: The Taliban is a murderous band of terrorists who’ve oppressed the people of Afghanistan with their hateful ideology long enough. America’s overthrow of the Taliban and support for responsible, democratic governance in Afghanistan is a great accomplishment that should not and will not be reversed.

“Having discussed the situation with commanders on the ground, I believe that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means. Our counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political processes.

“National reconciliation is a necessary and an urgent priority … but America will never negotiate with terrorists or support their entry into Afghanistan’s government.”

It doesn’t sound like the Taliban has Frist’s blessings to come to a negotiation table. What do you think?

Comment by Old Soldier — 5:25 pm
OS, I did read the article (the first time it was linked in). And as I pointed out before, these quotes aren’t from Frist’s speech, but from a damage control PR release after he came back.

I also said that it was Mel Martinez who said that we couldn’t exclude negotiating with the Taliban (according to Frist’s PR release “a murderous band of terrorists”). Frist only said that “people who may call themselves Taliban” should be put in the government. Of course both Mel and Bill make a distinction between Taliban fighters and Taliban politicians. I suspect they can tell them apart on sight…

Mind you, Frist did not deny saying that Afganistan cannot be won militarily. So put him up on the list with Murtha as a defeatist.

Comment by endorendil — 2:19 am
How can you guys look at this and think, wow, the democrats are the same as the terrorists? I read it and thought, wow, I guess W Bush IS an asshat.

Comment by death4hire — 6:23 am
[…] Ed also wonders why the protestors held a banner in English and Arabic. I think I know. […]

Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » Liberal’s Hate Free Speech — 10:59 am
I was surprised to find out last week that some liberals in the UK are appalled at how liberals are standing up for terrorists, (like we see domonstrated here) since they are against everything they stand for. I have to give Malkin credit for turning me on to it, there is one video here http://thedailyblogster.blogspot.com/2006/10/few-on-center-left-have-not-yet-lost.html

The rest are on YouTube, search for Aaronovitch.

Comment by Mr Bob — 1:23 pm
[…] You wonder why Democrats and our terrorist enemies always conveniently sound the same? Maybe it’s more than just a coincidence. Hamas officials have smuggled more than $66 million into Gaza and have met with U.S. Democrats at a secret location, it was reported Wednesday. … The United States lists Hamas as a terrorist organization funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. […]

Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » The Enemy Within — 5:31 pm
[…] It won’t be long before they grant voting rights to al-Qaida members… And it’s pretty clear how they’d vote. No Comments » […]

Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » Democrats Want More Protections for Everyone EXCEPT American Citizens — 2:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI