Tim Blair

Those of us who seved in Vietnam need no lectures on hand shaking from those who did not.

So you ridicule the guy who fought for his country to prop up the man who considered himself a "youth" with no responsibilities until he was 40. Whatever, it just shows who you are.

By the way, there was no invasion of Afghanistan! Would that there was. If only the US government had used half the effort to capture and kill the perpetrators of 9/11 that they used to pursue their pet project in Iraq. Remember, most days during the active phase of the Afgahn war consisted of dropping as few as two or three bombs from the air, with 1/10 of the sorties that were used in the first gulf war. Instead of sending US forces into Afghanistan to kill our enemies, Bush and Co. relied on the corrupt Pakistani army to cut off our enemies and the Northern Alliance, whose goal was to drive the Afghan Arabs into Pakistan. As anyone could have predicted -- and I was screaming it at my TV in October 2001 -- the result was al qeada slipped into Pak and reorganized there. It was one of the biggest military failures in US history (given the very high stakes). We didn't kill the fuckers. They are still mocking us. Good job W!

It was one of the biggest military failures in US history (given the very high stakes).

Yup, the U.S. could have learned a thing or two about fighting a war in the wilds of Afghanistan from the Brits and the Russkies. But Bush don't lawk that limey Blair's accent and reckons that all them Russian commie assholes gots delirium trembles from all that vodka. Damn you, Bush, damn you to hell for your cowboy imperialist unilateralism!!!

"So you ridicule the guy who fought for his country..."
...who in turn slanders the men still fighting in Vietnam with his congressional testimony. Ridicule is all he deserves.

As for Afgahnistan, look at a map. From where would you launch an Iraq-style invasion of the country? And would the invasion have any more success than the Russians had in '79-'89?

By the way, there was no invasion of Afghanistan!

Nope, only the overthrow of the Taliban. No soccer field executions and explody Buddhas for you, Omar, come back one year. You're a very, very, VERY bad man.

"Remember, most days during the active phase of the Afgahn war consisted of dropping as few as two or three bombs from the air, with 1/10 of the sorties that were used in the first gulf war."

pj, you missed the memo sent to all your fellow lefty moonbats: the US "carpet-bombed" Afghanistan, remember ?

John Kerry was in Vietnam? And he received some kind of service award because of it? I was not aware of that.

That is because I don't like to mention how heroic I was in Vietnam.

Visiting Cambridge back in the sixties, I sprained a rib while getting a blow job sprawled out in a row-boat. Got a Purple Knob. Never milked it for political advantage though. On the contrary.

Pj's first post reminds me of an exchange between two characters in Herman Wouk's "The Winds of War." They're discussing the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the first explains all the things the Japanese should have done, but failed to do. The second responds,

"I'm convinced. I'm sure that Japanese admiral is committing hara-kiri right now over his disgraceful failure."

I nominate pj for the most inane comment ever posted on this board.

JPS -- Pearl Harbor was a terrible, awful failure for the Japanese. They started a war with a more powerful foe and failed to land the surprise crippling blow that was essential for them to have any chance of victory.

Our attack on Afghanistan was a lot more noble, and hopefully won't be a prelude to final defeat, but we didn't finish the enemy off when we had the chance. Such a chance will never come again -- we had all of our enemies pinned down in one spot and ready to get wiped out, and we didn't do it.

And Carl, we went more than a month before we "carpet bombed" the Taliban trenches in Afghanistan, which was a good start, but we didn't have anyone on the ground to cinch the net. Bin Ladin obviously bribed his way out of Tora Bora. Who was in charge of that failure --Bush. The amazing thing is that he was dumb enough to think the mountains -- as opposed to jihadist zeal -- was the reason for the Soviets problems in Afghanistan. So he thought it was a problem in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. It is so frustrating to whatch! Bush wouldn't risk facing the jihadists on the ground in Afghanistan when the stakes were high, but is now repeating the Afghan - Soviet guerrilla war in Iraq, where we had nothing at stake until after Bush invaded.

Just as it took a democratic president to win WWI and WWII, it will take a democratic president to win the war on terror.

a politician's worst nightmare ... -- no shaking hands.
This isn't John Kerry's nightmare, it's a godsend: He finally has an excuse so he doesn't have to touch the unclean masses.
His shoulder is going to be sore for a long time.

pj, I think you need to contact your lefty controller for consultation -- you are way off message if you are claiming a Democrat needs to win this U.S. election because Bush is too soft on terror.

Bin Ladin obviously bribed his way out of Tora Bora.

How do you bribe a daisy cutter? And how is it that Allah's favorite son seems incapable of procuring a copy of the print edition of this or this or this with a date within the past, oh, I don't know, YEAR AND A HALF, putting it next to his face and posing in front of a Brownie or Super 8 or some other photographic device?

Yeesh.

...we had all of our enemies pinned down in one spot and ready to get wiped out, and we didn't do it...

That's nonsense, PJ. Your enemies were (and are) spread right across the Middle East and Western Asia.

PJ

You are absolutely right. Now go sell your theories to the Kerry campaign

One theory that does collapse completely is that of administration foreknowledge—the Bush people were evidently in no shape to take any quick advantage of the events and seemingly hadn't bothered to plant even one Iraqi among the mainly Saudi hijackers.

He's right. Didn't even realize that - dang, I can't keep my nihilist slogans straight. But seriously, think of the cost to leftist protesters who need to remake their signs and puppets. Will ANSWER cover it? No, probably all out-of-pocket. It's tough. Tough.

"Just as it took a democratic president to win WWI and WWII, it will take a democratic president to win the war on terror."

Silly, PJ. Even Kerry knows there should be no "war on terror"- only regime change at the White House. He has a visionary grand strategy of sending police after Al Qaeda and Hollywood after Bush. And do you not remember Quagmire LBJ?

as usual Hitchens is full of bunk. he offers lots of rhetoric and no facts. he must not have heard about Condi's little 'misspoke' before the commision.

We had no idea that terrorists would use airplanes as weapons.

Condi: Did I say that?

Commission: Yep.

Condi: I must have misspoken.

Keep it tuned to cspan.org. You're going to hear it live for yourself, now. So, too, may Hitchens.

Afghanistan is lawless outside Kabul, and the life of a woman there is still the pits. And heroin production is back at an all-time high. Put that in your smug pipe and smoke it.

Hey C, the law enforcement arm of anti-terrorism efforts seemed to done something idiotic in London in the last couple days. Something about foiling a terrorist plot. The stupid fools, don't they know that we should try to disrupt terrorism through law enforcement and should do it only with daisy cutters?

But what I'd really like to know is, who do we bomb next? Big fat targets that can be hit by the air, like we had in Afghanistan, are the low handing fruitin the war on terror. There aren't any more of those out there. If anti-terrorism efforts are not law enforcement focused from here on out, there will be none.

what exactly did they do in Afghanistan?

Usama is still alive and AQ is thriving. Highly successful operation no doubt.

If one eliminates AQ then by definition you don't have AQ in Iraq!

"What exactly did they do in Afghanistan?"

Um, toppled the Taliban and deprived AQ of a secure, state-sponsored base?

"Usama is still alive"

Maybe. But as Gen. Franks said last year, "If he is alive, he's having a very bad year" (excepting, of course, the Madrid attacks).

"and AQ is thriving." If by "thriving" you mean, "not totally defeated yet, and still dangerous," you're right. Otherwise this is just bizarre.

"Highly successful operation no doubt." Well, yes. Your logic here is the converse of the above. If we redefine incomplete success as failure, then your sneer is warranted. Some of us would say toppling a dictatorship in months from 8,000 miles away, using a relative handful of special forces, indigenous allies who weren't having much luck until we acted, and airplanes flying nonstop out of Missouri, is reasonably impressive.

"If one eliminates AQ then by definition you don't have AQ in Iraq!"

So we blew our chance to do that in Afghanistan? Seems to me they were already spread out through about 70 countries.

"Afghanistan is lawless outside Kabul, and the life of a woman there is still the pits. And heroin production is back at an all-time high. Put that in your smug pipe and smoke it. "

Miranda's right; we won't be successful until all Afganistan resembles Vermont, only with higher mountains and better-looking people.

In fact, I won't consider this War on Terror a success until Miranda gets the good rogering from a buff Marine she has been craving all her life.

You ask too great of a sacrifice from the armed forces, Carl. >:(

If Miranda puts on a "flowing" robe and stops shaving her beard, maybe Robert Fisk will have her.

LOL Sortelli and Andrea.

Andrea, that comment reminds me of one of the funniest lines in the "Blue Collar Comedy Tour". Seen it ?

PS. "that" originally was "your", and your checker flagged the "y o u r c o m" portion. You run a tight ship Andrea !

Homer,
"Usama is still alive and AQ is thriving." Really? Thriving? I don't think that word means what you think it means. From the Washington Times:

"...the terrorists seem to have been surprised by the strength of the American reaction to the September 11 attacks.
"Afterwards, we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the run," Mohammed is quoted as saying.
Al Qaeda's communications network was severely disrupted, he said. Operatives could no longer use satellite phones and had to rely on couriers, although they continued to use Internet chat rooms.
"Before September 11, we could dispatch operatives with the expectation of follow-up contact, but after October 7 [when U.S. bombing started in Afghanistan], that changed 180 degrees."

Way to thrive boys.

Killer point Miranda. Those women would be so much better off if left under the Taliban.
Genius.

this is fantastic,
afghanistan was an outstanding success and AQ is declining.

just don't tell the Spanish, Turks, Morocanns etc etc etc zzzzzzzzzzzz

Try again, Homer. Afghanistan is work in progress, and ain't no one is claiming the end is near. The success was (a) pulling down the Taliban, and (b) taking away AQs base of operations, and putting their leadership onthe run.

As JPS noted, AQ was already spread out across 70 countries, with their leadership in a safe haven. The doctrine is known as "centralized planning, decentralized execution." The problem was that centralized planning was in Afghanistan when we moved in, and then they were on the run. That's success by any measure.

The fact that there are cells still operating around the world was known before the Taliban got their just reward, as was the continued threat of terrorist attacks. Your snide remark about "just don't tell the Spanish, Turks, Morocanns etc etc etc zzzzzzzzzzzz" is immaterial because of that.

So wake up and smell the coffee.

...Morocanns ...

Who or what are Morcanns?

"Just as it took a democratic president to win WWI and WWII, it will take a democratic president to win the war on terror."

Yeah right. Just like the Democrat President's "won" in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia and surrendered an embassy to Iran.

Carl H.: I can't take credit for that one, it goes to the guy who wrote the MT-Blacklist script.

perfectsense -- ask the millions of Koreans who don't live under the yolk of Kim Jung Il what they think of Truman's decision to fight the Korean war.

And it is true that the attack on Afghanistan deprived al qeada of a terrorist staging ground -- but that would have been accomplished by any US president after 9/11. Cynthia Mckinnon supported that invasion. President Dennis Kucinich would have attacked Afghanistan and ended its use as an al queada sanctionary after 9/11.

So Bush gets a C+ for accomplishing what any other person with a heartbeat would have accomplished. But he certainly doesn't get an A because he didn't do anything exceptional. In fact, he didn't achieve necessary goals, and those failures resulted from terrible strategic blunders.

I for one believe that if Al Gore, John McCain or Bill Bradley had been president (the three other choices from 2000), things would have gone better. McCain criticized Bush for not sending troops in the fall of 2001, I recall.

The reason why this failure is so glaring is that we had them on the run. The crowds had stopped coming out to the rallies held by jihad rabble rousers. It was looking like a failed cause, and Bush rescued it from the brink by failing to finish the job in Afghanistan and by making us look weak in Iraq.

PJ -

They are on the run, what are you reading. And have you forgotten that in the fall of Iraq we have gleaned all sorts of useful info on how blackmarket nuclear weapons moved, which resulted in forcing Pakistan's hand in stepping up their fight with AQ.

No,we are not over the fight, it is ongoing and in reality has been going for over 1000 years. If you want to take a shot at Bush for not ending this 1000 year war in just 3 or 4 years be my guest. He is the first US leader who recognizes what this is all about - the terrorists want to kill us because of what we are, because we can have discussions like this one, etc. I do not believe any democrat today would have more agressively attacked AQ because they no longer believe in the superiority of their own culture, they are relativists, anything goes. The presidents who won WW1 and WW2 could not secure the democratic nomination today - too conservative. So skip the history lesson, until you learn your history.

Now, I would like to see Bush get more aggressive with Syria and Iran. Take those two out and significant support for terrorism would be eliminated. I believe the word is..."faster please."

Hey PJ, you are making me hungry with all this "living under the yolk" talk.