Five years ago today George Bush announced that Operation Enduring Freedom was underway in Afghanistan. American's were happy to see justice taking place for the horrible attacks that happened a month before.
Five years later, here we are. One of today's big headlines "Taliban revived in southern Afghanistan". To the American people, the NATO troops in Afghanistan and the world, things are not going good in Afghanistan. We have seen an enormous surge in violence and the Taliban is a daily word again.
Donald Rumsfeld has a piece in Today's Washington Post. It is the same typical spin, but there is one issue I want to bring up.
Security: The Afghan National Army has grown to more than 30,000, with approximately 1,000 soldiers added each month. The Afghan National Police now number more than 46,000. Afghan forces were successful in providing security for the two national elections held since 2004.
Really? Well how is it with such a rise in the Afghan army and with the 41,000+ NATO and US troops now there, could the Taliban, who was once nearly destroyed, make such a come back? How come things are so bad that Bill Frist, one of the Bush administration biggest supporters, is saying that the Taliban should be brought into the government?
All the spin in the world will not change the facts - We were winning in Afghanistan. Bush decided to invade Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 9.11). That second war drained the resources and attention of the first war and now we have two wars going on that are potential quagmires.
Comments
My favorite line is:
"Within weeks of our launching combat operations, however, the Taliban regime had been defeated, consigning yet another cruel regime to the dustbin of history."
Instead of being known for "We don't know what we don't know" he should be known for "I don't know what I don't want to know."
Rumsfeld redefines what war is and what victory is. Seems like the 'victory' claimed in Afghanistan is not so complete as has been claimed.
Dear Jamie,
As my dear ole pappie used to say, God rest his soul, "You're as full of shit as a Christmas tureky".
First of all, you can't have consensual sex with a 17 year old. That shoots your whole argument to hell. It's plainly and simply against the law to have sex with a 17 year old, period.
Besides, the very sick, sick, sick Mr. Foley hasn't been accused of having sex, just trying to (and his intended victim was a 21 year old former page), Whereas, Mr. Studs succeeded ( with a 17 year old minor). That's a big difference.
The rest of your whinning is based on half truths and out and out lies.
The Democrats have taken control of what's out there. They always do and the whimpy Republicans let them get away with it.
It turns my stomach to hear the disgraced senator Teddy Kennedy Eulogize the recently late Mr. Studs as being good for the country, he was anything but, Yet Mr. Kennedy says how bad Mr. Foley is for the same country when his sin was not as drastic as Studs.
Typical Democrat. Twist and turn everything to fit your agenda, it doesn't matter that you contradict yourselfs at every turn, just stick to the agenda. You make me sick.
What country are you in? What part of the government here does the Democrats have control of? Senate? House? White House? Check your facts and then get back with me.
As far as age of consent - check the history books on Gerry Studds. No charges were filed against Studds because the page was at the age of consent. If you would follow the Mark Foley case, you would see that one argument in his defense has been that the age of consent in D.C. is 16. Age of consent varies from state to state and a majority of states has the age of consent at 16. The funny part is Studds happened over 20 years ago. At that time a lot of states had AOC laws at 14. Just in recent years has the age of consent laws been raised.
Post new comment