Patterico's Pontifications


Obama and the Taliban

Filed under: Obama,Terrorism,War — DRJ @ 1:45 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Reports indicate President Obama may retool his Afghanistan policy by focusing on al Qaeda and accepting Taliban involvement in the future. Implicit in that decision is the belief that the Taliban is not a threat to America.

Today the AP reports Najibullah Zazi, the Denver airport shuttle driver accused of plotting a bombing in New York, had contacts with an al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan:

Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, an Egyptian reputed to be one of the founders of the terrorist network, used a middleman to contact Afghan immigrant Najibullah Zazi as the 24-year-old man hatched a plot to use homemade backpack bombs, perhaps on the city’s mass transit system, the two intelligence officials said.
Al-Yazid’s contact with Zazi indicates that al-Qaida leadership took an intense interest in what U.S. officials have called one of the most serious terrorism threats crafted on U.S. soil since the 9/11 attacks.

“Zazi working with the al-Qaida core is exceptionally alarming,” said Daniel Bynam of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center. “The al-Qaida core is capable of far more effective terrorist attacks than jihadist terrorists acting on their own, and coordination with the core also enables bin Laden to choose the timing to maximize the benefit to his organization.”

Who is al-Yazid? The AP article describes him as an al Qaeda leader but in 2006, the Washington Post profiled al-Yazid as al Qaeda’s top liaison to the Taliban who was “close to Taliban leader Mullah Omar” while also continuing to lead “al-Qaeda’s global fundraising efforts.” In addition, as recently as June 2009, al-Yazid said al Qaeda would use Pakistan’s nuclear weapons to attack the U.S.

The Taliban offers a framework that helps al Qaeda carry out its activities. Letting the Taliban regain control of even remote regions of Afghanistan gives al Qaeda that framework.


56 Responses to “Obama and the Taliban”

  1. Well, there is also that little matter of 9-11. AQ could not have carried out 9-11 but for the taliban, and thus that is why we quite rationally went after them too.

    This is nothing more than 9/10 thinking to compare them to hezbollah and mean that as a compliment to them (i mean i compare them to hezbollah but more in the “they should be wiped off the face of the earth, too” sort of sense). I hope and pray that all of this will work out, but i can’t help but think that our p—y president is making us less safe, not more safe.

    And this is also what is invidious about that nobel prize. now he might feel he has a duty to be a pacifist president or something. i mean in the right hands it might have made him feel like he had his “peacemaker” street cred which would then let him say, “of course i want peace. but sometimes war is necessary and this is one of those times” and then go on and kick taliban ass. But sadly i think Obambi is more likely to take this as a cue to lose the afghan war.

    Now one caveat. the reports i have seen suggest this is more like the opinion of a few morons in the white house, not necessarily Obambi himself. But on the other hand, this might be Obambi putting out a trial baloon to see how surrender plays in the public.

    A.W. (b1db52)

  2. If Obama’s only success diplomatically was winning a shooting war in Afghanistan, it would be a dramatic repudiation of the style of diplomacy he claimed would help us. Sure, he can tweak the strategy a bit, but this was Bush’s leadership and Bush’s legacy war.

    So Obama needs to win Afghanistan while proving that it wasn’t the Army that won the war, but Obama’s brilliant ability to sit down with monsters and forgive forgive forgive. That’s how Carter gave the world a renewed Mugabe, and it’s been working out so far for the democrats, since they are not really held accountable for this stuff.

    Obama wants to get some sort of concession from someone for something. Is the Taliban even capable of offering him peace in Afghanistan? Only if Obama gives them lots of money and weapons with which to rule their country. The same folks that bash W for Reagan helping the Mujahadeen will blame W for Obama helping the Taliban. Just as they ignore Carter for his limpy ‘leadership’ permitting Russia to invade Afghanistan, the consequences for Obama’s influence on countless monsters all over the world, from Burma to Baghdad, will be blamed on someone on the right. The better to muddy the waters with.

    It’s time to pull our troops out, or fight this war for real. The amount of money we are wasting on graft could have been used for real stimulus in Afghanistan. Here’s where imperialism would have dramatically improved the future.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  3. We have entrusted the security of this nation, if not that of the world, to morons!
    You are what you surround yourself with.

    AD - RtR/OS! (12661a)

  4. AD, I’m not sure the administration are morons. I don’t know what their motivation is but I am worried and would fell a little less concerned if they were morons. I think there is a plan there and I don’t think I like it.

    Mike K (187f3b)

  5. We are, I’m afraid, facing a violent future, that did not have to be.

    AD - RtR/OS! (12661a)

  6. Obama wants to give up in Afghanistan and use his usual excuse – that it was George W. Bush’s fault.

    However, since he campaigned on the claim that he knew better on Afghanistan, and adopted a COIN strategy just a half year ago, this will be his failure.

    Meanwhile, our national security policy is being constructed by juvenile twits.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  7. If Obama thinks he can parlay this off to Bush, he’s sadly mistaken. While the American people are no doubt frustrated by the war’s progress so far, they will not accept abject surrender, particularly from a person who they voted for partly on his awesome promise of annihilating the Taliban and AQ. He’s boxed into a corner, so he better do what McCristal wants, the sooner the better.

    Dmac (5ddc52)

  8. Mike K – Great company. Thanks for lunch.

    Barcky is an idiot.

    JD (cc3aa7)

  9. Handing over Osama and Mullah Omar would be a good first step in rapproachment.

    Hey, how’s that “be nice to Putin and he’ll help us out in Iran” thing going?

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  10. A pernicious twit,buffon,and smart power village person make foreign policy,what could go wrong?

    mike191 (97b84e)

  11. I think the concerns being expressed here are overblown. I have it on good authority that Obama’s go-to-guy, Joe Biden, has come up with a very clever plan to partition Afghanistan. Peace is at hand.

    Terry Gain (4045b4)

  12. I think there’s some feature/bug confusion here.

    Richard Aubrey (41f91f)

  13. Yeah, but they PROMISED not to kill any more women for wearing pants

    JEA (2df1cb)

  14. The Taliban offers a framework that helps al Qaeda carry out its activities. Letting the Taliban regain control of even remote regions of Afghanistan gives al Qaeda that framework.
    That is arguable.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  15. Then make your argument, child assrapist apologist.

    JD (70688e)

  16. Emperor:

    Are you seriously obtuse enough to attempt to make the argument that the Taliban would not provide sanctuary and support to al qaeda even though they did just that and more for over five years despite numerous demands they they, you know, stop doing that?

    Please recognize that the question is fully rhetorical and doesn’t touch upon the fact that the Taliban may have set an all time record for brutality, intolerance and oppression.

    You, however, may have set an all time record for commenting ignorance.

    BJTexs (3e68c7)

  17. BJ – It appears to be in a contest with itself to see which of its personalities can be the most ignorant.

    JD (5e5cad)

  18. Then make your argument, child assrapist apologist.

    Comment by JD — 10/14/2009 @ 5:22 pm

    You forgot something.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  19. Comment by BJTexs — 10/14/2009 @ 5:57 pm

    Does “BJ” stand for Blow Job?

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  20. Bastard who uses his religion in order to excuse his opinion that adults can rape children without consequence.

    Dmac (5ddc52)

  21. Stop obsessing about JD, Emperor.

    Make an argument that handing over some aspect of power in Afghanistan to the Taliban will not, in some way, provide cover, sanctuary and resources to al qaeda beyond what they have now.

    This should be good (as in goofy.)

    BJTexs (3e68c7)

  22. Emperor:


    [deep breath]



    Wow, doggies, emperor, that was a good one! You know, no one has ever made that particular connection before.

    Well, at least not since third grade recess, anyway.

    So, juvenile humor time over. Got an argument to offer?

    BJTexs (3e68c7)

  23. Got an argument to offer?

    Comment by BJTexs — 10/14/2009 @ 6:15 pm

    It is arguable because that is not a complete analysis of the issue. It’s purely based on opinion. It is not fair to say that ceding ground to the Tabilan is equal to handing over to AQ. We don’t know that. This is just speculations. Think: who would the Tabilan be more inclined to have as an ally, the American-led coalition or AQ?

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  24. BS, The Emperor. We do know that.

    The Taliban and Al Queda were allies for many years. The Taliban and Al Queda fought alongside each other for years. Al Queda’s Osama Bin Laden was appointed the Taliban “Defense Minister” in the month before 9/11. The Taliban shielded Bin Laden and Al Queda in the aftermath of 9/11.

    Your ignorance and/or willingness to make up stuff continues to be astonishing.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  25. The Taliban has had 8 years to befriend America — years in which (according to President Obama) the U.S. did not bring a real fight to Afghanistan. Don’t you think the Taliban leaders would have reached out to America by now if they were going to?

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  26. Dmac,
    Bastard who uses his religion pretended religious beliefs in order to excuse his opinion that adults can rape children without consequence.

    Just wanted to clarify what’s going on here. Lovey/Empy has no religion other than self-worship. Sorta like Obama, whose pretend piety just happens to coincide with his political agenda. The phoniest people reach for religion most often as pretext for their beliefs. No wonder Obama cites Jesus more often than Bush did.

    In this atheist’s experience, genuinely religious people show humility about their own human failings, and don’t constantly roll out the Deity to endorse their political agenda.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  27. When I read Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” I liked it.

    Still do. It was a good book.

    Ag80 (2a7a2a)

  28. I know Obama and his administration exist in this Berkeley bubble of liberal ideology that has no foundation in reality, but do they actually think that the line “The Taliban are not the enemy” is actually going to work.

    Even the most zoned out dope head on the street would not by this liberal drivel.

    Lets remember where the roots of this relationship came from:

    Pact between Omar (Taliban leader) and Osama (al-qaeda leader):


    Bin Laden then made a pledge of personal fealty,much like the one that members of al-qaeda swore to him.He acknowledged Omar as the leader of the faithful.
    “We consider you to be our noble Emir”.
    Bin Laden wrote.
    “We invite all muslims to render assistance and co-operation to you,in every possible way that they can.

    Here is Obama talking tough about how important it was to defeat the Taliban and al-qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan when he was running for President and after he had already won:

    Obama in March,2009:

    “…if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.”

    Get it…if the Afghan government “falls to the Taliban”…the country will again be a base for terrorism…or is that “man made disasters”.

    Obama at the VFW 2009:

    If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a — this is fundamental to the defense of our people.

    This is a fundamental defense of our people.
    Tough talk…..back then.

    Obama at the VFW in 2009:

    This is the central front in the war on terrorism. This is where the Taliban is gaining strength and launching new attacks, including one that just took the life of ten French soldiers. This is where Osama bin Laden and the same terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans on our own soil are hiding and plotting seven years after 9/11. This is a war that we have to win.

    Once again…where the “Taliban are gaining strength and launching attacks”.

    Obama said this when he put forth his “smart power” strategy in March with the naming of Gen. McCrystal as the commanding officer in Afghanistan:

    “To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban’s gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government,” Mr. Obama concluded. As Gen. McChrystal’s report makes very clear, keeping faith with that goal will require more troops, more resources and years of patience. Yet to break with it would both dishonor and endanger this country. As the president put it, “the world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos.”

    Obama when he needed votes from the people who understand the importance of National Security:

    According to Obama, Eliminating the terrorist safe havens,training camps,and ability to launch attacks from Afghanistan and Pakistan is vital to America’s safety.

    “We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”

    “[al Qaeda] are now operating in 60 countries. We have to go to the root cause, and that is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s going to be critical. “

    “…every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front — that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.”
    And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.

    Obama on Afghanistan/Pakistan during the 2008 Presidential debates

    So why would Obama deny our military what it needs to win?

    Now that Obama has the votes he needed.
    Now that the democrats can’t sit on the sidelines whining and pointing fingers.
    Now that Obama has to assume the risks of war time decision making…….We get this:

    The New York Times,

    President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.

    Completely stuck on stupid!!!!!

    Baxter Greene (af5030)

  29. This is an outstanding breakdown of al-qaeda and how it networks with the Taliban and other jihadist groups:

    The Long War Journal: Analysis: Al Qaeda is the tip of the jihadist spear

    Written by Thomas Joscelyn & Bill Roggio on October 8, 2009 2:12 PM to The Long War Journal
    Available online at:

    And it is true in the post-9/11 world, where al Qaeda continues to leverage its decades-long relationships with jihadist allies around the globe and especially in the heart of Central and South Asia. Thus, we find that each of the three primary Afghan insurgent groups discussed in General McChrystal’s analysis – the Quetta Shura Taliban (QST), the Haqqani Network (HQN), and the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) – is a core ally of al Qaeda with long-established personal ties between these groups’ senior leaders and al Qaeda’s senior leaders. Moreover, al Qaeda cooperates with each of these organizations in substantive ways in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. If anything, General McChrystal’s analysis actually downplayed the interconnectivity between these organizations and al Qaeda.

    To say that the Taliban are not our enemies and abandoning Afghanistan to them will not be dangerous for America just defies all logic and common sense.

    Claiming victory by simply ignoring all history and facts concerning our enemy and then simply issuing talking points of “The Taliban are not dangerous” for the media to regurgitate may pass for success in the huffington post world but not in the real world.

    If Obama continues down this path, he will be the face of capitulation and surrender to the jihadist for all the world to see.

    Baxter Greene (af5030)

  30. Comment by DRJ — 10/14/2009 @ 6:41 pm
    There is merit to this fear that the Taliban will prefer to side with AQ against the US led forces. Is it based on conclusive facts?
    But there are two sides to this argument.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  31. And here’s Lovey/Empy’s other side, Gareth Porter.

    The link (PDF) goes to Porter’s “The Myth of the Bloodbath: North Vietnam’s Land Reform Reconsidered”.

    And here, another PDF: “Gareth Porter, Congressional Testimony on Cambodia [PDF, 1.6 MB] The IPS defends the Khmer Rouge.”

    Porter says reports of wholesale slaughter of Cambodians by class is a “myth . . . not supported by serious documentary evidence.”

    With that track record, who wouldn’t trust L/E’s source on the Taliban?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  32. Emperor:

    This quote is from your link and I think it’s a fair summary of the ‘other side of the argument’ you refer to:

    “They say that the Taliban leadership still blames Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda for their loss of power after September 11, 2001, and that the Taliban-al-Qaeda cooperation is much narrower today than it was during the period of Taliban rule from 1996 to 2001.”

    Now look at the links in my post regarding al-Yazid. Al-Yazid objected to OBL’s 9/11 plans because he thought they would trigger an American attack on Afghanistan and the Taliban. He feared that would do great damage to al Qaeda and he was right, not only about America’s response but the impact on the Taliban and al Qaeda.

    What’s most striking now is that al-Yazid is al Qaeda’s #1 in Afghanistan. That tells me that instead of abandoning the Taliban and Afghanistan, al Qaeda is doing all it can to protect its position with them both.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  33. I guess neither one of them (Porter or Empty Roar) ever read The Killing Fields.

    AD - RtR/OS! (12661a)

  34. Lovey – Do you find the sexual practices of the Taliban as stimulating as those of Roman Polanski?

    Are you a naturalized American citizen or here illegally?

    daleyrocks (d057d3)

  35. What if the Taliban gives us the remains of Osama bin Laden, in exchange for Obama’s promise to give the Taliban their power back. Sure, there will be a purge. Perhaps millions will die, like they did in Cambodia and Vietnam. But many in the media, and many Americans, will conclude that Obama won the effort to get the evil mastermind.

    Our troops leave, and when the country gets worse and worse, we will just exclaim ‘oh, they were always like that… it’s not our problem’. And of course, this situation, like many others in the world, will become time bombs for that future generation… ya know, the one that is paying for our TARP and GM and stimulus and social security and first time homebuyer credit… those folks, will have to find a way to deal with.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  36. DRJ
    I got this from one of your provided links:

    Bowing to the reality that the Taliban is too ingrained in Afghanistan’s culture to be entirely defeated, the administration is prepared to accept some Taliban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said. That could mean paving the way for Taliban members willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government — the kind of peace talks advocated by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to little receptiveness from the Taliban. It might even mean ceding some regions of the country to the Taliban.
    Do you still think the Taliban can defeated in some other way? I mean apart from the situation represented in the article above? Do you believe the Taliban can be crushed militarily without destroying the nation itself?

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  37. Yes.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  38. But more important, General McChrystal and other staff members think the war in Afghanistan can be won.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  39. Quoting Gareth Porter? Sheesh, that’s almost of a kind of his admiration of Polanski’s tastes.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  40. Add me to the group waiting for the day when Lovey is banned. I, for one, am tired of Lovey’s sexually-charged attacks against me, along with all the other rubbish Lovey had to say about Polanski, rape, etc, ad nauseum.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  41. John, check out the incredible case of projection that this creature displayed in the Limbaugh thread.

    Eric Blair (8484db)

  42. Letting the Taliban regain control of even remote regions of Afghanistan gives al Qaeda that framework.

    I doubt even 60,000 more U.S. troops would be enough to prevent that. Or, more accurately, reverse it.

    Without indigenous and tribal role-playing, we may not have the brigades under arms to effect that level of mission.

    What’s most striking now is that al-Yazid is al Qaeda’s #1 in Afghanistan.

    al-Yazid’s whereabouts and administration aren’t known. He may well operate from Pakistan.

    steve (b97adf)

  43. Yeah, I saw. But what can you expect from someone who gets stimulated by reading a thirteen-year-old girl’s description of her actual rape?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  44. Emperor, I think it’s great that you want a lot of care placed on our military objectives not to forget the point is an improved afghanistan.

    Just don’t forget that Iraq was, the entire time, a winnable situation. It’s amazing what people can do if you give them a chance. There was a time with South Korea was a miserable place mired in a decade old insurgency.

    I think the experts in Afghanistan have a tough job, and should be permitted to make errors and adjustments. But they have a reasonable plan.

    I am unsure we will ever find out if it would have worked, though. There is no doubt that it will run into snags. The surge certainly was not smooth sailing, and I recall it being pronounced a failure on day 1, 2, 3. Can the administration deal with this kind of pressure? I think, oddly, they are under more pressure to find some success than Bush was under with Iraq.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  45. Can the administration deal with this kind of pressure? I think, oddly, they are under more pressure to find some success than Bush was under with Iraq.

    Comment by Dustin — 10/14/2009 @ 9:03 pm

    Why do you think so? Care to elaborate?

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  46. Rather than trying to fight everywhere, General McChrystal intends to shift forces to critical areas, putting our troops where the Afghan population is most at risk. He’s keen on getting them – and tens of thousands of U.S. civilians – out of their armored vehicles and fortified bases into Afghan communities. They’d be seen to walk among the population unprotected, like the Afghans themselves do. Might be called a Petraeus corollary.

    How would this strategy NOT cede control of remote regions of Afghanistan to the Taliban?

    steve (b97adf)

  47. lovie – Aren’t you happy to have steve here with you arguing against imaginary positions?

    JD (5e5cad)

  48. steve,

    We haven’t seen the report but it’s my understanding McChrystal requested as many as 80,000 troops to institute this strategy more broadly, with 40,000 troops as the minimum. There’s less ground to cede with 40,000 more troops, and even less than that with 80,000.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  49. Emperor said:

    Do you still think the Taliban can defeated in some other way? I mean apart from the situation represented in the article above? Do you believe the Taliban can be crushed militarily without destroying the nation itself?

    Let me be clear:

    You know about as much of the religious, tribal, cultural and political intricacies of Afghanistan as I do. If I’m wrong, please correct me.

    Citing this or that article doesn’t make you smarter or more informed. It makes you a “citer.”

    I have no idea what is the best solution for winning the war in Afghanistan. Because, I don’t have the information to make a valid decision.

    I can express an opinion, based on the available information, but I have to place my trust in those who are on the ground and the advice they give to elected officials who are armed with information that you and I do not possess.

    Placing that trust does not matter one whit as to which party is in power.

    Ag80 (2a7a2a)

  50. Putting Afghanistan on the back burner is wrong for so many reasons that I can’t imagine the Big O doing anything else. He may try to make it look like he is doing something positive, some compromise in troop numbers or something, but even that he’ll have to hold his nose for.

    jodetoad (059c35)

  51. The emperor, why do I think Obama is under more pressure? Partly because it was clear the Bush had spent his political capital before Iraq turned around. The pressure is obviously less for people who have only a loyal group left in support.

    Also, Obama has promised much more than Bush. Almost ridiculously more.

    I do not think Obama is secretly trying to harm the war effort. I think he’s having a hard time handling the competing coalitions of support he relies on, and that’s part of why it’s taking him so long to react to things such as McChrystal’s report (though that’s only one of thousands of examples).

    And consider this: for Obama’s plan to work, he also has to sell his ideas to the Taliban. He’s put himself in a position that requires their HELP. Similarly, he’s trusted the Iranian government to meet with him and deal with him. Bush did not face such a ambitious situation.

    Bush relied on Russia to some extent, and of course he famously relied on the UN in 2002-3. But Obama’s saying the Taliban has a role in ruling Afghanistan… that’s a position that took balls to come up with.

    I guess what I’m really getting at is that if Obama does not feel quite a bit of pressure from this circumstance, that’s a huge problem. He’s suing for peace, and the judge is sworn against peace. Obama needs to incentivize things quite carefully to make this work even for a short time.

    Not only are these choices evidence of feeling pressure, but they create pressure. Obama’s answering to peaceniks and Reagan democrats. He’s fighting the perception he’s Bush-lite and that he’s Carter-lite.

    Bush simply didn’t have the nuance to arrive in that kind of position. For better or worse.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  52. Or, when you paint with broad brushes, you paint yourself into a corner more quickly.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  53. His base hates American military power, they are also less culturally confident about America’s traditions. The Taliban were a group sponsored by Maulvi Younis Khalis,one of the original Peshawar Seven, funded by the CIA, but selected by Saudi General Intelligence and the ISI. Mullah Omar,is Khalis’s protege. Hekmatyar was another one of those supported by the GI/ISI. He was opposed to the Taliban, but has joined forces with them, against the Karzai Govt.

    bishop (996c34)

  54. The Empty Roar

    Wow, you packed a whole lot of stupid into your comments.

    > It is arguable because that is not a complete analysis of the issue. It’s purely based on opinion.

    And the fact that they HAVE done exactly that.

    > It is not fair to say that ceding ground to the Tabilan is equal to handing over to AQ. We don’t know that. This is just speculations.

    Based on the fact that in the past giving them control meant giving a safe haven for AQ.

    I mean I could picture you in 1946. “Sure, the Nazis murdered millions of jews and tried to take over the world, but there is no proof that they would do that if given power now. So let’s let them take over Germany!” Stupid, huh?

    > Think:

    Take your own advice.

    > who would the Tabilan be more inclined to have as an ally, the American-led coalition or AQ?

    Um, let’s see here. The Taliban are terrorists who are mad because scantily clad western women give them erections. And AQ are terrorists who are mad because scantily clad western women give them erections. And Americans are 53% scantily clad (by their standards) women. This is a hard one to figure out…

    You know the phrase “birds of a feather…”?

    So just how long is the statute of limitations for you for being violent terrorist supporting totalitarians. We know it is something less than 30 some odd years for child ass rapists, and apparently less than 8 years for terrorists that help to murder 3,000 americans.

    A.W. (b1db52)

  55. Dustin

    the reason why obama feels some pressure is that if he doesn’t then americans will figure out that you can’t trust dems right now on matters of national security. which they can’t, but it would become blindingly obvious if we turn on the TV and there is Mullah Omar calling the shots again.

    A.W. (b1db52)

  56. A.W., you are acting like this person wants to actual engage in discussion. I doubt sincerely she or he has ever read anything about this subject other than DK, HP, or the like.

    The mask is off. Just a nasty person playing games.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3463 secs.