Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghanistan: The Betrayal
I did not think he would lose me so soon-sooner than Bill Clinton did. Like many people, I was deeply invested in the success of our first African-American president. I had written op-ed pieces and articles to support him in The New York Times and The New York Review of Books. My wife and I had maxed out in donations for him. Our children had been ardent for his cause.
Others I respect have given up on him before now. I can see why. His backtracking on the treatment of torture (and photographs of torture), his hesitations to give up on rendition, on detentions, on military commissions, and on signing statements, are disheartening continuations of George W. Bush's heritage. But I kept hoping that he was using these concessions to buy leeway for his most important position, for the ground on which his presidential bid was predicated.
There was only one thing that brought him to the attention of the nation as a future president. It was opposition to the Iraq war. None of his serious rivals for the Democratic nomination had that credential-not Hillary Clinton, not Joseph Biden, not John Edwards. It set him apart. He put in clarion terms the truth about that war-that it was a dumb war, that it went after an enemy where he was not hiding, that it had no indigenous base of support, that it had no sensible goal and no foreseeable cutoff point.
He said that he would not oppose war in general, but dumb wars. On that basis, we went for him. And now he betrays us. Although he talked of a larger commitment to Afghanistan during his campaign, he has now officially adopted his very own war, one with all the disqualifications that he attacked in the Iraq engagement. This war too is a dumb one. It has even less indigenous props than Iraq did.
Iraq at least had a functioning government (though a tyrannical one). The Afghanistan government that replaced the Taliban is not only corrupt but ineffectual. The country is riven by tribal war, Islamic militancy, and warlordism, and fueled by a drug economy -interrupting the drug industry will destabilize what order there is and increase hostility to us.
We have been in Afghanistan for eight years, earning hatred as occupiers, and after this record for longevity in American wars we will be there for still more years earning even more hatred. It gives us not another Iraq but another Vietnam, with wobbly rulers and an alien culture.
Although Obama says he plans to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011, he will meanwhile be sending there not only soldiers but the contract employees that cling about us now like camp followers, corrupt adjuncts in perpetuity. Obama did not mention these plagues that now equal the number of military personnel we dispatch. We are sending off thousands of people to take and give bribes to drug dealers in Afghanistan.
If we had wanted Bush's wars, and contractors, and corruption, we could have voted for John McCain. At least we would have seen our foe facing us, not felt him at our back, as now we do. The Republicans are given a great boon by this new war. They can use its cost to say that domestic needs are too expensive to be met-health care, education, infrastructure. They can say that military recruitments from the poor make job creation unnecessary. They can call it Obama's war when it is really theirs. They can attack it and support it at the same time, with equal advantage.
I cannot vote for any Republican. But Obama will not get another penny from me, or another word of praise, after this betrayal. And in all this I know that my disappointment does not matter. What really matters are the lives of the young men and women he is sending off to senseless deaths.
89 Comments so far
Show AllOK Garry. Read you loud and clear. In military jargon this Afghanistan thing (and the Obama regime, in general) is a FUBAR. So what do we do? It's going to take a lot more than denying campaign contributions to the 2012 Obama campaign.
Who's with me?
Wills: "I cannot vote for any Republican. But Obama will not get another penny from me, or another word of praise, after this betrayal." I believe you, Mr. Wills, but I'd bet my last dollar that when in 2012 the Democratic Party throws up another corporate candidate (even Obama himself) you will vote for that person. And you know what, Obama won't need your praise or your pennies. He'll get all the praise he needs from the swooning paparazzi who scream for him as a rock star because of his oh-so-cool style. He'll get all the pennies he needs from the banks he has bailed out and the defense industries he has enabled by his war escalation. He will need your vote, and you and all your other "disillusioned" colleagues will hold your noses and vote for him again and nothing will change in the corporate duopoly that is leading us into hell.
Right! Until we get instant runoff elections as Nader called for a decade ago, the duopoly will never be challenged.
Instant runoff elections would eliminate the fear of a "wasted" vote by allowing the voter to prioritize his/her vote.
Wasted vote ?
How about capturing those who don't vote out of disgust or hopelessness?
Instant run offs won't happen without a viable third party to press for them.
So, when people say they are not going to vote we have to have a viable alternative or there is no reason to vote ...
Go Green Party ...
The Republican-Democratic duopoly will never pass a progressive agenda. Just look at the so-called Progressive Caucus on health care ... betrayal ...
Until the left has a real party in power we are doomed to financial-warfare corporatism.
Mr. Wills also writes: "And in all this I know that my disappointment does not matter. What really matters are the lives of the young men and women he is sending off to senseless deaths.
I ask: Is it only American casualties that matter? What about the lives of the Afghans/Pakistanis who our fine young men and women will rain death upon?
Very sad.
It's all here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12022009.html
Those of us who watched our peace candidates such as McKinney systematically excluded from the debates are finding it difficult to watch the realization of the lies that got OBushma elected.
WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!
There! I feel better.
But I could be wrong !
It's going to take 5% of our population to sit on Capitol Hill. With TV, Internet and soccer practice, I fear we'll never be able to accomplish this.
As the upper half of society has the best brains,
giving them the most wealth,all our capitalist
politicians just can't please them enough.
So is not 50% the support we need?
Again you equate wealth with intelligence?
There is a huge difference between cunning and intelligence.
I sure took you a long time to wake up, Mr. Wills, but I am glad you finally did. Now, I hope you can practice what you preach and help lead our oppressed citizenry into a new day with very different and "for the people" political arrangements.
Garry Wills is "something else." Mr "intellectual" just discovered that this "black" president, and I'm using that term rather liberally, because I think he's a lot more Honkey than I am, has betrayed us. Gee, what a "bright one" you are.
"40 books," eh. Hey, did any of them really contribute to anything other than his ego and so much hot air?
"I look all white/but my dad was black/I can see right through Wills' plastic mac."
Leviticus 18:21...'you shall not give up any of your children to molock'...and here we go again, blood scrifice for the elites.
Why isn't the religious right wing up in arms over this?
The "religious" right wing is composed of phony war-pig scumbag idiots.
It doesn't matter whether a bunch of priests are standing around a fire pit, feeding children to the flames in hopes of placating some god or other so that they might have a decent hunt/harvest, or whether twenty guys wearing Armani are in a boardroom discussing how a good war might increase corporate profits. Both are committing human sacrifice to their particular object of worship and devotion. Which version has more actual blood on its hands I wonder? No, actually I don't wonder. Greed beats all other religions (or ideologies) hands down in terms of spilled blood.
That's a wonderfully evocative analogy.
Ya got ta love all these people who are now turning on Obama for doing exactly what he said he'd do ... fight the Afghanistan War ...
Wills joins Tom Hayden and a plethora of other faux progressives who have overlooked Obama's fealty to banksters, domestic spying, military spending and his appointments in general ....
The real left needs its own party. The Republican-Democratic duopoly will never let a progressive agenda see the light of day ...
Join the Green Party ...
Great advice. I wished the author would have mentioned Green Party for starters in this article.
Join the Green Party; I second or third or fourth the motion; but I already have as a "recovering" 50-year Democrat.
Seriously, I could care a whole lot less about what party one is affiliated with as long as he or she has the actual substance to lead and govern well for the people rather than for the elites. If more Democrats were just like Dennis Kucinich in terms of the issues then even Nader and Mckinney would be Democrats by now. But so much damage both parties have done forces me to make an exception and thereby look at anyone associating themselves with either the Democrat or Republican Party with suspicion. My only issue with Kucinich is staying in the party and allowing the party to abuse and marginalize his valiant populist progressive efforts.
P.S.: I like your blog site as well as your articles in the Florida newspaper you write for.
What I wouldn't give to see Kucinich in the Whitehouse, or Nader for that matter. But Kucinich, in particular, would find the greatest opposition from within his own party. I think he has been very naive in thinking he could fix a broken party, but I've supported him in spite of it out of hopes that there still might be a way to work within the system to eradicate corruption. It's been some years since I thought that was possible, and unless Kucinich quits the party and runs as an independent, or as a Green candidate, I cannot support him further. To be honest I think Nader would be a good president, and I would love to see him working WITH people like Kucinich and McKinney. But I think they'd have to find an alternative security detail if they ever did get into high office. The Secret Service can't be trusted, and for sure the whole of the U.S. Military is beyond salvage. They'd do better to hire security from within the ranks of the Crips or Bloods - but then Gary Webb pretty much made the case that the gangs rose to national prominence with direct financial help from the CIA. So even that might not work. Who to trust anymore?
Spread the word about the Green Party ...
There are going to be millions of disaffected high school and college grads as well as the tens of millions already alienated Democrats ...
This is the time for change ...
FULL AND PERFECT DARKNESS
Did not hear any of his debates and except for his election victory speech,
I listen not. For my dad was from Chicago, I grew up in Milwaukee and in
Chicago gangster politics, only time those in office speak truth is when
their lips stop moving.
For believe it or not, the purpose of this world is to establish a full and
perfect understanding of darkness, and if you can spot the pretense
of good, before a liar has a chance to enrich himself upon your misery,
the gold ring is yours.
I can see why you moved to Alabama and I don't blame you. Politics can be real nutty in AL but sometimes, I wonder which politics is worse, Chicago style or Alabama style. The former is looking scarier the longer this administration goes on. :(
This is ridiculously naive. The anti-war president was Kucinich, dummy.
here, here
hear hear
Just like Obama, Kucinich is a politician and will bend appropriately to the political winds. When push came to shove on peace at the 2004 convention and later on impeachment Kucinich kowtowed. And like Obama, as fellow politicians, Kucinich would be talking the same inane exit strategy baloney if he were president. It wasn't Obama who made their loudest applause during his inaugural speech after his vow to militancy - it was The People of the audience. If Some of The People really want peace it will be a door to door neighbor to neighbor thing over a which politician to fund thing. If enough of The People actually want world peace the politicians will bend to that breeze.
Wills, you apparently weren't paying much attention during the 2008 foreign policy debate between McCain and Obama. Obama very explicitly laid out his plans to pull troops out of Iraq and use those numbers instead in Afghanistan.
"So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no Al Qaida before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan. And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that Al Qaida 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. So here's what we have to do comprehensively, though. It's not just more troops. We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I've said this to President Karzai. Number two, we've got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years. Number three, we've got to deal with Pakistan, because Al Qaida and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens. And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe." - Barack Obama, first presidential debate in Sept. 2008
Granted, we're sending a little more than twice the amount Obama initially proposed (a brigade is somewhere between 3500 and 5000 people), but. How is this a betrayal? He told you exactly what he was planning to do a year ago, and you either ignored it or weren't paying attention. I don't support the decision to "surge" in Afghanistan at all, but it hardly comes as a surprise
Don't get mad at him when the problem actually is that you weren't paying attention.
Post No Bills
This looks like an outright propaganda piece to me, designed to fool progressives into thinking that liberals are coming around to their view of Obama.
Gary Wills writes, "But I kept hoping that he was using these concessions to buy leeway for his most important position ... opposition to the Iraq war."
This is nonsense, as it was perfectly clear during the campaign that Obama supported the Iraq war, given that he voted to continue funding it at least twice. But what's even stranger is the contrast between the sentiments expressed in this article, which appeared on Gary's blog at blogs.nybooks.com, dated December 2, 2009 (yesterday), and Gary's article that appeared today on the New York Review of Books website at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23431. From the latter article:
"I have great hopes for the Obama presidency, even in his first term, and especially if he could have two terms to realize the exciting new things he aspires to do in the White House. ... It is unlikely that we will soon have another president with the moral and rhetorical force to talk us out of a foolish commitment that cannot be sustained without shame and defeat."
Note that Gary's December 2 blog article refers to sentiments expressed in the December 3 article as if they were in the past ("I kept hoping"). Either some of the dates are wrong, or the publication of the latter article was substantially delayed, or Mr. Wills is thoroughly confused, or he's being disingenuous.
Mr. Wills appears to be just another calculating Obama courtier, ready to vote for him again in 2012, while pretending to oppose his policies at moments when they're unpopular.
Gary also wrote, "I cannot vote for any Republican." Does he really think that Obama's policies differ from the Bush administration's policies in any substantial way? And if not, then why wouldn't he vote for a Republican?
He also wrote, "But Obama will not get another penny from me, or another word of praise, after this betrayal." But Gary already did praise Obama in the December 3 article in the New York Review of Books, as quoted above.
Yep, there will be shouting and screaming by the Dems and the Repugs.
Then after the corporatocracy gets what they want, and throw money at the political duopoly, they will all kiss and make up singing Cumbaya.
We need the Green Party ...
reply to john mitchell: i've been reading wills since college. like chomsky, he is a first- rate intellectual who ought to get a lot more coverage and kudos for what he does. i don't think he is dissembling, nor do i think he will fawn before obama in 2012. he simply recognized the potential of the president, a person who seems intellectual, empathetic, and sincere, all at the same time. we on the left just saw too much in him, maybe because of his race as well. for wills to recognize amazing potential does not equate to his blessing obama's policies. in fact, wills' break here seems decisive to me, burning the whole bridge. the only thing that troubles me about wills is that he has not equalled his best book, nixon agonistes, which he wrote in his 20's. the other books were excellent, of course, but seemed purposely dumbed down to an average readership. and, in truth, he did seem to excuse some of reagan's worst excesses in his biography of reagan, saying reagan's huge mistakes were simply those of a miscast idealist. but, anyway, will's article of today i will certainly save and distribute, for it speaks in simple and understandable terms of how obama has betrayed america, and himself. like benedict arnold, he did it from west point.
You say that Wills' break here seems decisive, but he avoided saying that he won't vote for Obama in 2012. He merely wrote that "Obama will not get another penny from me, or another word of praise, after this betrayal." To me, that's not a decisive break, it's a very mild response to Obama's long list of misdeeds. If Wills would promise not to vote for Obama in 2012, or better yet, if he would support impeachment of Obama for protecting those in the Bush administration who authorized torture, then I would start to respect him.
I understand that many fine people saw Obama as a savior who would extricate us all from the nightmare of the Bush years, and I respect anyone with the integrity to publicly admit that he or she was wrong, provided that it's done with sincerity. What troubles me is that so many well-meaning people missed so many obvious signs that Obama sided with the "establishment", and let their emotions get the better of their reason. What's to keep the same thing from happening again in 2012?
By the way, I want to note that the explanation for the discrepancy in dates that I mentioned seems to be that Wills' article in the Dec. 3 issue of the NY Review of Books was written some time before the publication date. For example, the current issue on the web is dated Dec. 17, 2009.
I find it interesting that we've all but forgotten about holding the last administration legally accountable for their (millions of) prosecutable felonies, and actions that could easily be construed as treason. When I say millions, I'm not joking. Every illegal act of surveillance was a singular felony, and it was done to many millions of innocent people. That doesn't even touch the deception of Congress and political use of intelligence to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq AND Afghanistan (yes, invading Afghanistan was illegal also). How soon we forget. It surely is a mind numbing shit storm. They have perfected the art of muddying the waters. The game is no longer about finding sufficient evidence to prosecute, but in finding an honest prosecutor or judge (much less an honest mainstream journalist). Evidence is the easy part.
to mr.john mitchell: i agree with the spirit of your letter, but we can't expect wills to call for obama's impeachment to retain his credibility with us. i must admit that you are correct from a purely legalistic point of view. there are at least five known deaths (see jane mayer's book) of prisoners in cia custody, with not one arrest having been made. the infamous picture of sabrina harmon, with her thumbs up sign as she mocks an iraqi corpse, resulted in no arrest. yoo teaches school at ucla, while gonzales apes his protege at texas tech. proof continues to build that bush and cheney knew there were no wmds in iraq, enlarging the the already voluminous evidence that this war was strictly aggressive, and thus a crime under international law. obama has done nothing to bring these criminals to the dock, not because he wouldn't like to do so, but because he knows that if he followed his instincts that the whole country would be thrown into turmoil and become even less governable and more divided than it already is. i sensed your misgivings before the election and voted for nader, making a lot of friends mad. but, i have to admit, if red tennessee had actually been in play, i would probably have voted for obama. obama is a consensus builder by nature; his only break with the establishment was his early opposition to the iraq war, about which events later vindicated him. i agree that obama should do more to prosecute bush officials. these wars have bankrupted and demoralized us, and caused the deaths of too many american kids and at least 120,000 innocent civilians. it's strange how numb we all become to these crimes. you hear of them so often, they cease to faze you. and war is still antiseptic and clinical to us, as fewer than 1% of us have kids in iraq or afghanistan. people now see this war as a common news item, not the unique historical tragedy that it truly is, and will surely be viewed as 50 years hence. i think we are beginning to understand how the germans must have been in the hitler era. we become powerless in the face of powerful immorality. we have to turn our face, it is too much to think about, and we are each just one individual in a teeming mass of blind conformity. and, no one is truly free to speak out and protest. you will be labelled and forever branded a protester. and, the first amendment does not apply to business, as they are free to fire or demote any employee strictly on the basis of his political views.
johnny u - I agree with what you wrote, and I understand the fear that drives people to vote for Democrats as the lesser of two evils; I even did that myself once. But we have to overcome those fears and learn how to assert the power that our system of government requires of us. Voting for 3rd-party candidates is clearly not a complete solution to our political problems, but it would at least force the establishment to start paying attention.
A minor point: I didn't say that I wouldn't respect Wills until he called for Obama's impeachment. I indicated that I would start to respect him if he would promise not to vote for Obama in 2012. I would respect him even more if he would call for Obama's impeachment.
john mitchell- good conversation, thanks for replying. i think we are really in agreement. i wish the blue dogs would just leave the democratic party. they would do themselves and the republicans a favor to go red. upon their exit, the distinction in the public mind between progressivism and a conservatism that stems mostly from a desire to protect the economic status quo, would become clear. now, the agendas of both parties somewhat overlap, with our democans or republicrats gusting a mighty headwind to derail real reform and muddy the ideological waters. now, i must say, that a strictly progressive democratic party might not get a majority of the vote, but when times of crisis come, the public would at least have a clear choice. obama's health care program, with all its bells and whistles and conditions and compromises, is beyond the comprehension of most people, so it never gained a groundswell of support. on the other hand, progressive single payer is something that is easy to understand , and might have captured the popular imagination when voters began to understand that it was simply medicare extended to all. but, the blue dogs in the senate and house wouldn't hear of it, and began throwing abortion provisos into it and shrinking the public option to miniscule stature.
johnny u - Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I'll end the conversation here, before we run out of room for more indentation!
john mitchell- i agree that a third party should arise from the disaster that america has become. how profoundly ironic that the right should now be in the ascendancy when it is the warriors and wall street that have ripped this country to shreds. endless war, corruption, and worldwide financial panic have been the hallmarks of their reign. still, glenn beck, ann coulter, rush limbaugh, sean hannity, and their ilk rule the airways, while folks like chomsky, a world renown intellectual who has a name recognition of over 60% in europe, is recognized by fewer than 10% of the us. my point is that there is a huge institutional bias against progressivism, which would be surely amplified should a third party progressive movement emerge. some of this is because america is so anti-democratic; for instance, under a true majority rules system, bush would never have become president in 2000, as gore and nader, who together took about the same percentage of the vote as reagan took in 1980 (51%), would have formed a governing center-left coalition. not so in our "democracy"! another impediment is the us senate. look who is blocking health care reform; it's the senators from the small states. 51% of americans live in the largest 9 states, but have only 18% of the voting power in the us senate, a co-equal legislative branch. but bachus, snowe, grassley, conrad, and enzi call the shots, though they represent less than 3% of the voters. so even if progressives could get 51%, there would still exist no guarantee for change. we're left with being called spoilers when we vote for nader and elect bush. and, technically, under our anti-democratic constitution that rewards consensus and punishes divergence, they're right.
Mr. Obama is the first African American president of the United States. His election gave joy to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities. The country proved that it is possible to overcome racial stereotypes in electing a president. I voted for Obama and I am not ashamed. In voting for him, I felt there was, perhaps, a ten percent chance he would begin the changes that are necessary. He didn't come through--but all of those gloating over the foolishness of people like me should keep in mind that the choice you made--Nader, Green Party, etc.--made exactly zero difference in the way things turned out. Better virtuous than potent--eh? I guess.
I voted for Obama too, but he was certainly not my first choice. I voted my fears, again. In 2000 I heard so much crap about how my vote for Nader handed the election to Bush (even though he still had to steal it) that I voted for Kerry in the 2004 election, only to watch Kerry throw the fight - exactly the opposite of what he promised in the event the election smelled fishy. Of course we now have a mountain of evidence that it was also stolen, and so voting my fears (Kerry) rather than my hopes (Nader) were comparably useless. After Obama used his senate vote to immunize telecoms for their illegal surveillance I knew Obama wasn't going to be any kind of savior, but I'd become so enraged at the violent and willful stupidity of right-wing talking heads I guess I thought a respite was in order. Certainly Obama isn't quite so obviously offensive in his speech-making, and the very image of his face hasn't evoked such bitter hatred from me as was Bush/Cheney. But I think right now it might be exactly what his election was intended to do - put us back to sleep. I think the great experiment is overwith - but then like most politically motivated 'experiments' it was a fraud from start to finish. The experiment with democracy never actually happened - just like the experiment with Marxism never actually happened. The U.S. is no more fairly representative of democratic principles, and the Soviet Union was no more fairly representative of socialist principles, than the Pope or American Christianity is representative of Christ.
Your comments are insightful, kogwonton.
As I and others have pointed out here, the argument that voting for a 3rd-party candidate amounts to throwing away your vote, or to voting for the "other side", due to the lack of support that 3rd-party candidates receive, is circular reasoning, or a self-fulfilling prophecy.
One of the fundamental problems in our system is that voters have no effective way to act in unison. If everyone who wanted to end the wars, stop torture and prosecute the torturers, etc., had a way to decide together to vote for a candidate who really represents their positions and values, they could assert the power that our system of government intended for them. But each voter decides in isolation, afraid that there won't be enough support among other voters for his or her own vote to "count". So they retreat to the safety of a Democrat or Republican, and go on wondering when a true savior will come.
"Better virtuous than potent--eh? I guess."
What's your motto, "better potent than virtuous"? I'm sure Obama would agree with you on that.
Despite Obama's war-mongering, his protection of torturers, his attacks on constitutional rights, his collusion with Wall Street predators, and his many other misdeeds, you admire him because he's black. Here's a suggestion for the next election: try ignoring race and focusing on the candidates' principles.
so what you are saying is..... you got duped, yet again, by the Democrats! The Democrats can fool you and most progressives every 2 years!
theowl, you are exactly right about supposedly educated and sophisticated liberals, neoliberals (phony progressives) getting fooled and hosed as much as those mid-American rubes that Thomas Frank wrote about in "What's the Matter with Kansas" ---- voting against their own self-interests and being led like sheep, in the 2004 election, only to be conned by the neocons.
After this 2008 fleecing of the 'wicked smart' east and west coasters, Frank needs to write a book about the 2008 election scam called "What's the Matter with Massachusetts" (and California) exploring how these soooo much more politically astute libs 'got had' by the DNC/DLC Democratic Party and particularly Mr. Big O (Mr. Big zero).
Those oh so 'smart', sophisticated blue-state voters who invested their 'hopes' and voted for Barack Obama are now acting much like those oh-so smart sophisticated investors who invested in Bernie Madoff.
That old adage certainly applies to both situations: "If it looks too good to be true --- it probably is."
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
It astounds me as an "educated" column writer you never see the writing on the wall and still, Garry, you write:
"I cannot vote for any Republican". Your statement, to the masses, who read your tripe, implies the system works.
The duopoly doesn't work and to make matters worse if you vote 3rd party, Diebold will make sure the votes aren't counted.
You had your last chance with Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney -all for real change and all excluded from the debates.
You and the rest of your mindless minions voted for the lessor of 2 evils. And now evil is what we have.
the taliban didn't do 9/11, al queda did. but they've mostly left afghanistan, where the taliban have become resurgent in the last two years. taliban control 40% of that country, but al queda has not returned. there were just a few al queida there before 9/11, and the taliban offered to turn osama over to an international court if nato or bush could show probable cause that osama was involved in 9/11. instead of responding, we started bombing. maybe the taliban overture was a ruse, but maybe it was not. because of trigger happpy bush, we'll never know. only al queida has an internationalist bent, and if obama's national security advisor says that there are only 100 of them within a country undergoing a burgeoning taliban insurgency, then afghanistan does not now present a danger to the united states of america. the taliban have even offered peace terms that include their complete disavowal of al queida. the mainstream media hasn't mentioned that one time during its all-out celebration of the pro-war hoopla that came after obama's west point speech. the fact is that without al queida in the equation, the struggles in afghanistan are just a mismash of civil wars, with different sides teaming up against, or siding with, various and shifting tribes and factions. the taliban certainly have the strength and connections to harbor al queida, but they have not done so. since obama has admiited as much, what is the point of this war? what is the motive ulterior to the ones praised and sanctified by the lapdog media? let's hear some answers on this one!
What evidence do you have the al queda did 9/11?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o