Video: Let’s stop “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians” in Afghanistan, says Messiah; Update: AP “fact checks” GOP attacks on Obama quote
posted at 2:50 pm on August 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
We’ve gotten four or five e-mails about this since Glenn posted on it last night and Captain Ed went nuclear on it this morning. I’m loath to defend his holiness but I think this is less a case of Obama meaning to cast unfair aspersions on the troops in Afghanistan than being too flip in describing a serious recurring problem. The fact is, there have been a number of high profile airstrikes lately that ended up killing — unintentionally, of course — large numbers of Afghan civilians. That’s not according to the lying, lying Taliban, either. Here’s a report from May quoting the governor of Helmand province claiming that 21 civilians died in a raid on jihadis; here’s another from June reporting 25 dead sourced to a local police chief; and here’s one just a few days later citing estimates from Afghan officials of 60 dead in the latest strikes. It’s a longstanding issue, sufficiently so as to have drawn a promise from NATO at the start of the year to do more to avoid collateral damage, but this fiasco in March brought the problem to a head.
The Taliban’s obviously using the locals as human shields, as brave mujahideen are wont to do, but reminding Afghans of that fact isn’t going to do much to reduce the heat Karzai’s feeling from the public over it. In fact, if the Guardian’s numbers are right, as of late June there had been slightly more Afghans killed this year by coalition action than by the Taliban. Obama’s point, as I take it, is that the more troops we have on the ground, the less we need to rely on air power, and the more precise our attacks on the enemy will be. The jerky part was adding the word “just,” which I’m guessing is his nod at how Afghans may perceive U.S. operations sometimes.
Update: Romney’s campaign responds to Obama. This is the second time in the past few weeks they’ve gone for a cheap applause line at his expense.
Update: Wow. Their point is well taken — I made it myself, after all — but let me know when they do any “fact checking” of Democratic attacks on Republicans. That’s not an article, it’s a campaign press release.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Maybe His Progressiveness can help develop more accurate explosive delivery devices.
Whoops. Forgot he was a talking head in a suit for a moment.
MadisonConservative on August 14, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I’m still amazed that people pay attention to this punk.
bbz123 on August 14, 2007 at 2:57 PM
So, let’s go bomb Pakistan!
amerpundit on August 14, 2007 at 2:59 PM
By the way, Allah, Romney’s campaign has responded to Obama.
amerpundit on August 14, 2007 at 3:00 PM
No wonder his initials are B.O.; his campaign stinks.
radjah shelduck on August 14, 2007 at 3:02 PM
But let me do it anyway…
And the more dead soldiers we’ll have, the more opportunities we’ll miss, etc., etc.
I know, let’s invade Pakistan instead! I guess we are going to do it strictly on the ground.
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Mitt was on top of this, like the others should have been. A couple more gaffs like this from Obama, and stick a fork in him…he is done. And the others (Republican candidates) will never catch Mitt.
The other candidates have to get on the news cycle, if they want to stay in this race. Sitting back and letting the dems tack pot shots at the military is a gift that keeps on giving.
right2bright on August 14, 2007 at 3:05 PM
“We’ve got to get the job done there,” he said of Afghanistan. “And that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.“
-Barack Obama
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Yeah, let me do it anyway if he’s getting a bad rap. That’s called honesty.
Weren’t you the one who accused me of going over to the “dark side” in the Cheney thread this weekend, or am I thinking of someone else?
Allahpundit on August 14, 2007 at 3:07 PM
We could completely eliminate ALL fatalities of innocent civilians if we transformed our military into a purely hand-to-hand combat force. No more guns. No more bombs. Just fists. That way we can stop paying for all these fancy weapons that we will never use.
Zetterson on August 14, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Hmm, Allah has been swayed by the Messiah’s magical words.
Rick on August 14, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Game, set….
Poor Obama. The guy is a rook, through and through. Like my friend says, he was working at a Pizza Hutt before he was elected to the Senate. No experience.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Honestly, I don’t think boots on the ground is going to accomplish much more than putting our guys in harms way. The taliban are using civilians as human shields. It would be very costly for us to send ground troops in to try to negotiate for hostages.
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 3:23 PM
He is becoming quite gaffe prone in the areas of foreign policy.
frankj on August 14, 2007 at 3:23 PM
also, I’m pretty much obligated as an Air Force guy to state the blatantly obvious here….
we need to be moving towards more close air support, not less. That and space is our asymmetrical advantage.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 3:23 PM
When you see this kind of delusional thinking coming from the #2 dimocratic candidate for president, it is unsettling that 1/2 of the voters would even take him seriously. The dimos are incapable of understanding what our national security and economic requirements are and they still have the presidency as a distinct possibility. We live in uncertain times.
volsense on August 14, 2007 at 3:23 PM
No, I asked you if you had gone over to the dark side when you recycled an old story without any analysis or context after telling us you weren’t going to vote and had doubts about making common cause with a group of people who distrust atheists. In that context, I thought it was a legitimate question.
I love ya brother but you’re too quick to give the Left the benefit of the doubt and defend them. A courtesy not often afforded to the Right.
This guy just made it sound like American soldiers are over there indiscriminately bombing villages and killing civilians. If that’s not what he meant he’ll clarify his remarks.
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Perhaps he doesn’t mean to demean our military but I don’t think so in the bigger picture. But this is just my opinion.
Catie96706 on August 14, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Dude, get off you knees.
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 3:25 PM
If anything the US is going more in the direction of using air power rather than ground power.
Again I worry about politicians taking weapons out of our soldiers hands for political purposes.
It would be nice if the Taliban wore uniforms and carryed ID badges but they dont. So hitting them is as easy as Obama or anyone else makes it out to be.
ROE is fine and dandy but can get more of our soliders killed than civilians saved.
William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 3:27 PM
I’m glad he posted that Cheney video. I’d rather be confronted with opposing viewpoints and fact than have it hidden from me. I’ll take that kind of intellectual honesty over religious adherence to a cookie cutter “conservative” or “liberal” party line any day of the week.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 3:27 PM
hate to say it, but the guys right. the air power is great for invasions and close support in heated battles…but it couldnt hurt to replace some of those strike missions with actual troops.
and as for romney…he attacks obama for an “innacurate condemnation” of our military men and women. am i the only one that doesnt quite see a condemnation of our troops, let alone an innacurate one? the commanders are heavy on the air power…saying so, and recommending otherwise does not mean he condemned them
ernesto on August 14, 2007 at 3:27 PM
See above, and stop being so freakin’ weird.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 3:27 PM
I wonder if this was the raid that Obama is talking about:
BohicaTwentyTwo on August 14, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Oh please. Don’t worry AP will send you some traffic.
And, the issue isn’t the old video, the issue is it being recycled many months later without any analysis, research or context and then being used to call into question the entire Iraq invasion. Are we clear now?
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 3:30 PM
You know, for all the brilliant plans this guy seems to have for solving every single problem under the sun, how come he and his fellow Senatorial partner in crime Dickie Durbin can’t come up with a solution to the current mess of a budget crisis in their own state of Illinois?
pilamaye on August 14, 2007 at 3:35 PM
I’m hard-pressed to see any justification for his remarks, much less actually make excuses for his alleged faux-paux. His statement in context, as given, was and is patently false. Period.
One who is seeking to hold an office at the ultimate pinnacle of earthly existence (POTUS) does not simply and inadvertantly flatly state in any context, “…so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians…” when stumping for votes (the hovering of the hand while speaking like he’s beaming holiness and cleansing to the rapt masses was a nice touch though).
We don’t simply “just air raid villages and kill civilians” in any way, shape, or form. I know it, and you know it. There have been collateral casualties in EVERY single war and in countless military actions, and there always has been despite any and all military commanders from any and all countries best intentions to avoid such casualties, that much is true. But he makes it sound like we;re taking the path of least resistence… ie; ‘kill em all and let God sort em out’.
It’s particularly dangerous to be living in a war zone, much less intermingling amongst the enemy who you have to know may be hit at any time with any countless types of strike-ordinance. In my estimation, if you’re living in and amongst a group of people whom are the sworn enemies of the (currently) most powerful nation on Earth, you don’t stick around. You leave and don’t come back until the bomb magnets are dispersed, or destroyed, whichever comes first. In a place like Afghansitan, anyone who lives, works, and plays among the most reviled people on earth (organized Terrorists with the goal of ruling the planet), you’re either one of them or an aider and abettor, which basically makes you one of them.
To me, and several others I’ve discussed this with since last night when his remarks came to light, his remark is tantamount to saying that we’re carpet bombing whole sectors of Afghanistan, just like we carpet bombed sectors of… dunt duh dunt dunt… Vietnaaam. “Yeah, remember Vietnam America? Vote for me and make Vietnam: Part Deux stop now!”
I call B.S. on his remarks being a simple slip of the toungue or an inadvertant slight. He knows what the hell he’s saying, he didn’t get where he is so fast by being stupid and saying things without conviction.
SilverStar830 on August 14, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Hod now we’re relying on the AP for body counts.
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Bad rap?!?!?!? Honesty?!?!?!?!
Allahpundit, you have no idea what you are talking about. And to pontificate on this subject like you do reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
The U.S. is doing the EXACT samething that Israel had to do to Hezbollah last summer. And if it means taking out “innocent” civilians then that’s the cost of war. B Hussein Obama, is ignorant of this fact and so are you. So tell me, when and where do you study military tactics???? I thought so.
Andy in Agoura Hills on August 14, 2007 at 3:36 PM
I have problems with Ap News fact there Allah. Its almost Jamil Hussien like
William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 3:36 PM
.
What’s that your lame way of trying to put me on the defensive? Ineffective, I think.
Uh, you’ve said that about five different times now, so yes.
What analysis would you like? A dissertation, perhaps? The video falls into the same category as Rummy’s visit with Saddam in the early 80s. The world changed.
Did you want Allah to type in big bold font that “9/11 CHANGED THINGS” for you? I was for invasion in 03. I probably would have been against it in 94. So what?
Why you found it so offensive and threatening is beyond me.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Gee I wonder why these areas are dangerous? After all, they’re all just civilians!
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 3:37 PM
I’m in the Air Force, I’ve studied military tactics, particularly the tactics of air war, throughout my career and higher education.
What we’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan looks nothing like Israel’s light ground footprint, force-centric air campaign from Lebanon’s summer war. In fact, the surge is quite the opposite.
So I’m not sure how you’re forming your opinion here.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 3:40 PM
And its important to recognize the FACT that a large portion of the Democratic base believes the American military IS “just” indiscriminately bombing villages and killing civilians. The Messiah knows exactly what he was saying here. This is an attempt to appeal to the Dem base. I’d be willing to bet half the people in that crowd nodded with approval to that statement, the same way they nodded with approval to Kerry stepping up to the mic and saying that he committed attrocities along with the rest of the corrupt American military men in uniform. Obama said this because he knew he could get away with it. He knew the MSM would come to his defense immediately while at the same time he had most of that audience nodding with approval.
Zetterson on August 14, 2007 at 3:41 PM
How about a simple Google search to see how all the story was for starters?
How about just a sense of obligation and fairness? If this post rates an “honest” assessment why didn’t that one? See? It’s really not that hard to figure out is it?
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Yeah, but… the 80’s were 20-sum-odd years ago… Obama’s video is 20-sum-odd HOURS old.
Please, you think we’re children here?
SilverStar830 on August 14, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Stop being so snotty. I hardly link John ever. You have no right to pull that.
And once again, I’m going to remind you that you were the only one who claimed to have seen that video before. I specifically asked other commenters to tell me if they’d seen it too and they hadn’t. In fact, it got written up in E&P over the weekend. If anyone would have known about it existing before, they would have.
Yeah, me too. Although I’ll bet if I had a video of Harry Reid talking about invading circa 1994 and had put it up without any “analysis,” no one would have much minded. In fact, I have posted video before of the Democrats talking about Saddam’s WMDs in 2002. Not too many complaints in the comments about insufficient analysis on those posts, I must tell you.
Allahpundit on August 14, 2007 at 3:41 PM
I agree that Obama didn’t necessarily say anything wrong here. But I hope he doesn’t vote for the ‘extra down time for troops’ that is on the table in congress now if he really wants to get the job done right. Check how he votes on that one.
But I don’t see anything wrong with hitting the civilians that are being used as human shields by the Taliban. We need them to understand that the Taliban is not their friend. The civilians need to understand that helping or being in close proximity with the Taliban is a worse idea than fighting them. We need these civilians to be on our side by fighting WITH us to defeat the Taliban. If they are just allowing the Taliban in their midst until we find them (rather than coming to us to tell us they are there), then if they get hit, it is their fault.
I hate to see innocent civilians get killed, but as soon as we win, this war will be over and everyone will be safe – especially American troops.
ThackerAgency on August 14, 2007 at 3:42 PM
I guess I’d first like to know what the AP considers a “civilian”.
RightWinged on August 14, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Next time, AP, you better mindless tow the party line. That’s what we’ve come to expect from you.
frankj on August 14, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Wrong.
SilverStar830 on August 14, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Umm the purpose of psoting stuff and allowing comments is to debate the merits of what is being talked about. While the Cheny stuff was old it was relevant
We have free thinking on this site unlike the Daily Kos. Sometimes its absurd here and sometimes its funny but you dont have to agree with evrything and just state your own position and avoid making things personal
William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 3:45 PM
I’ve gotten a few off of you, but that’s besides the point. To think that a) any opinion that is outside the party line must be tainted by an ulterior motive and b) that anyone would be so shallow as to say “hey, John from OPFOR agrees with me…I’m going to link the hell out of him” is kind of dumb.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 3:47 PM
You, too, John. Forget your SO AF training and education. Listen to the experts.
baldilocks on August 14, 2007 at 3:47 PM
lol. snark on dude, snark on.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 3:48 PM
You, too, John. Forget your SO AF training and education. Listen to the experts.Heh, you’re right Baldilocks. No more smartassery from me!
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 3:51 PM
And let’s pretend that bit was quoted, not struck through.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Negative, AP. The purpose of putting bombs on targets is not to conduct air raids on villages or kill civilians. The jerky part is his entire sentence. Obama needs to acknowledge the difference between collateral damage…which is, you know, collateral, and the reason you’re dropping the bombs in the first place. We don’t conduct air raids against villages…we conduct airstrikes against legitimate designated targets, some of which may or may not be co-located with a village and/or civilians.
If I juxtapose his words here with other things he’s said, it paints a rather bleak picture of his intentions toward Pakistani civilians. Assuming, of course, that he has a clue what he’s saying.
As a mostly unrelated side note, does anyone know if collateral damage has increased since we’ve turned portions of OEF over to NATO?
James on August 14, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I won’t live that long.
amerpundit on August 14, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Bingo, that sums it up effectively. And we’re precise enough that we can negate targets in a crowded village without damaging the house next door.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Well said.
AP, for you to defend Obama Hussein’s John Kerry-style military smear is really disgusting.
faraway on August 14, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Yes, and I’m sure Obama understands that. As I read it, he’s speaking from the point of view of Afghans who might be led to think because of the collateral damage that the U.S. is attacking villages. By the same token, Obama knows we’re not “just” using air raids; he knows we have troops in country who are conducting operations. He’s speaking from the population’s perspective, I think.
Allahpundit on August 14, 2007 at 3:57 PM
I’m not sure where this supposed distinction between the use of airpower in close support and using ground troops is supposed to lead to.
AP and others have already mentioned the central issue: the enemy routinely uses civilians in their own homes as human shields. Given that foundation, the scenarios for engaging the enemy are severely limited:
1. We can use indirect fire (artillery or air support) to engage the enemy. It has the dual advantages of economy of force as well as saving us a lot of friendly casualties that would otherwise ensue from a room-to-room clearing operation.
2. Or, in lieu of indirect fire means, we can play “SWAT Team” and send in the infantry to engage the enemy in house-to-house, room-to-room close-quarter combat. We still get the civilian casualties (this is what the supposed “massacre of civilians” at Haditha was all about), plus a lot of friendly casualties.
Either way, innocent civilians die along with the enemy. Either way, the laws of war hold the enemy directly responsible for the deaths of civilians they deliberately put in harm’s way.
The only difference lies in how many of our own people as well as allied troops we sacrifice in the process.
Either way, expect the enemy – and their “I’m-not-with-you-even-though-I’m-standing-shoulder-to-shoulder-with-you” apologists in this country – will try to claim a propaganda victory.
The only other alternative is not to engage the enemy every time they use civilians for cover. That’d be giving them a real win, instead of a public-relations one.
War is never antiseptic; especially when we’re fighting 7th Century throwbacks whose only Law of Land Warfare is, “anything goes.” Accordingly, we have to make the best of an ugly situation; and the best we can hope for is to minimize friendly casualties when the enemy turns homes into bunkers.
Spurius Ligustinus on August 14, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Is this moron saying we target civilians…???…why do I even bother with this nutso…???…
Who cares what he says…he’s out of ideas…nothing he says impacts me…
areseaoh on August 14, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Did anyone else notice the link to the magic negro’s website at the bottom of the “Fact Check” article? They aren’t biased are they?
saltydogg14 on August 14, 2007 at 3:59 PM
He’s not “smearing” the military and I wouldn’t be defending him if he was and you know it. Or maybe you don’t know it, actually; you’re calling him “Obama Hussein,” after all.
Allahpundit on August 14, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Obama worthy of analysis and defense, Cheney, not so much.
I will remind you that I posted a link to ABC News that showed how old the story was. Some people did in fact say they hadn’t seen it while others remembered the story if not the video. But, that wasn’t my point now was it?
Hey, it’s your blog. You run it the way you want.
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Yeah, it’s Hussein Obama … big difference ………………
SilverStar830 on August 14, 2007 at 4:01 PM
This irked me beyond the usual “civilian killing” meme that so many on the left love.
I’m not sure how long the GOP campaigns are going to allow the Dems to get away with this “we need to pull out of Iraq to kill Al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan” line. It’s stupid.
The largest concentration of Al-Qa’ida outside of Waziristan is in Iraq. Northwest Yemen is up there, too. But the bottom line is that we’ve already got the enemy in our kill box.
So I’d love for any leading candidate to tell me why pulling out of Iraq and turning it over to Al-Qa’ida and Iran is going to help us in the overall war on terrorism.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Here’s something more productive for you guys to do than bitching at me about smearing the military or whatever: e-mail Michelle and complain. I do have a boss and she does listen to her customers. Put “AP posted an old video of Cheney with insufficient ‘analysis’” in the subject line to get her attention. Or “AP hates the troops.” She’ll see it.
Allahpundit on August 14, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Obama Hussein is his name isn’t it? Like Hillary Rodham, George W, etc.
Let’s put it this way, I would not use the words he did. You would not. The GOP candidates would never use those words. Those words sound more like something from Kos or Sister Cindy.
faraway on August 14, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Exactly, I agree. I don’t understand why this even warrants discussion.
Obama is digging his own grave here with his commentary on foreign policy. Whatever he really ‘meant’ to mean, he needs be much more precise in his statements, otherwise Hillary is going to continue to chew him up despite her own positional hypocrisies.
Spirit of 1776 on August 14, 2007 at 4:04 PM
His full name is Barack Hussein Obama … but you can call him The Messiah.
SilverStar830 on August 14, 2007 at 4:04 PM
No thanks, this is a more manly way to handle it:) It’s OK to take a little criticism every now and then, right? It’s all in kind fun anyway.
faraway on August 14, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Compared to this knucklehead, Hillary ain’t looking too bad.
SoulGlo on August 14, 2007 at 4:08 PM
I want to get you for tricking me into veiwing that rosie in a t shirt picture
Even Gitmo banned the use of that photo
William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Come on now don’t be like that! Don’t get all defensive on us. We’re here aren’t we? We’re just trying to keep you in line a little cause we love ya ;-)
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 4:08 PM
I’m starting to think that his campaign team is just as inexperienced as he is, these gaffes are way too rookie for a front-runner to be making.
You want to talk political experience? Bill Clinton. That dude was on the radio last month, and in front of a heavily liberal audience advocated withdrawal from Iraq while arguing why we can’t withdrawal from Iraq. The crowd cheered and so did my Republican friends.
Say what you want about the guy, I didn’t like most of his politics, but….
damn he could talk a good game.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 4:09 PM
You’re right. Sorry. I knew there was a little Hussein in him somewhere.
faraway on August 14, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Well hope this goes through this time
I might do that for the “Rosie in a wet T Shirt” picture
Even Gitmo wont use that as it is proscribed as torture
William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 4:10 PM
No “we” in there, I think. If I want to hear the “line,” I just go to the GOP website for news.
Blogging, at its core, is an entertainment industry. And just like in a good movie, I’m more entertained by conflict than placid, uniform agreement.
John from OPFOR on August 14, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Allah, I’m not sure but I think you might be giving Obama too much credit. Saying stuff about the evil US military causing harm to innocents is very appealing the the Dem base. Its for this reason they make saying such things a regular habit. Kerry, Durbin, Kerry, Murtha and now Obama. Because of the way the Dem base cheers all these statements its possible (bordering probable) that these statements are floated out there purposely in order to sure up the base. A Dem primary should be fertile ground for these statements. Sure it could have been clumsy wording, but in this case, I’m skeptical.
We have to keep in mind that the left is working from a totally different template. They see the world differently and view the American Military in a different light then does the right. To the left it is primarily a force for evil and corruption. To the right it is a force of good and of justice. Its no mystery why it is so common for a leftist politician to bash the military. THEIR SUPPORTERS LOVE IT!
Zetterson on August 14, 2007 at 4:11 PM
I think it’s time that this guy prove it. Why doesn’t McCain, Romney or Guiliani call him out?
tarpon on August 14, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Has anyone read “Lone Survivor” by Marcus Luttrell? He was the only survivor of Seal Team 10 who went on a covert mission in Afghanistan in 2005. The team ended up being ambushed because, partly, the ROE were so tight.
From reading that book, air strikes would have made a huge difference. The book talks about collateral damage. If you haven’t read it yet, I strongly suggest you do.
pullingmyhairout on August 14, 2007 at 4:14 PM
The guy really is incredible isn’t he.
Zetterson on August 14, 2007 at 4:14 PM
I think it’s him mostly, honestly. I mean his manager, David Axelrod, has been out there nuancing and cleaning up his statements afterward, so I don’t think they intended him to say what he’s said the way he’s said it.
How about some truth in advertising? It’s applied pressure in the attempt to change the outcome after the character and the nature of the source is well-known. Akin to a woman who marries a man with intent to change him. The commitment is not noble of itself because it is not to the reality but to the intended modification.
Spirit of 1776 on August 14, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Well its not like the AP NEWs is BIASED or anything
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_re_as/media_savvy_taliban
Taliban wins attention with Koreans By ALISA TANG, Associated Press Writer
KABUL, Afghanistan – A string of hostage dramas in Afghanistan has been a publicity coup for the Islamic militants of the Taliban, who hope high-profile kidnappings will help drive out foreigners and make Afghans view them as powerful
The fact that the Taliban have been given this legitimacy is a body blow for the U.S.-led occupation and may signal many more kidnappings of a similar nature,” said Anthony Moorhouse at Dynamiq Pty Ltd., a security consulting firm in Australia. “The success that this kidnapping has brought to the Taliban, in terms of political leverage, is beyond even their expectations.”
Media coverage has added “enormous pressure to the government of South Korea,” Moorhouse said. “They have a duty of care to the South Korean captives, but also need to be strong in the face of terrorism. They cannot be seen to be caving in to terrorists.”
The fact that the Koreans are willing to negotiate with them — this is a major achievement for the Taliban,” said Mustafa Alani, director of security and terrorism studies at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center.
William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 4:14 PM
AP- “Obama’s point, as I take it, is that the more troops we have on the ground, the less we need to rely on air power, and the more precise our attacks on the enemy will be.”
And the more dead soldiers we’ll have, the more opportunities we’ll miss, etc., etc.
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Having more troops on the ground could result in more dead soldiers or less, all depends.
More ground troops and less air power could result in more opportunities missed or less opportunities missed, again all depends.
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 4:15 PM
There is no way Karzai has any idea how many are being killed. Some local “official” tells him some number. We went through this stuff a week or so ago when we laid some eggs on a Talliwacker/Al Quaeda graduation ceremony and supposedly killed 300 civilians. The military accounted for all the bodies and 300 wasn’t anywhere close to the tally of civvies killed. I’m sorry if you’re at a AQ/Taliban Grad Party and you get wacked, so be it. You were part and parcel of the group. If you were kidnapped and used as a bomb shield, I feel sympathy. It’s war and one of the things that happens is that civilians die as well as soldiers. I don’t think AP would have survived the death and destruction visited upon civilians in WW II.
Laddy on August 14, 2007 at 4:20 PM
I agree William Amos. That T shirt picture of Rosie could be used to torture jihadists into saying anything. Did you notice the MoveOn.org commercial when the “I do” was hit? Selling inaugural date countdown materials on Bush. Was that subliminal or was it a plant?
volsense on August 14, 2007 at 4:22 PM
One other point. I wouldn’t want a CIC that was a wimp when it came to dropping bombs or shooting missiles because there might be some collateral damages (CD), including the death of innocents. That’s how wars get lost. Of course there’s going to be CD. You try to minimize it if you can but the only way to avoid it is to do nothing; thus, you lose.
Laddy on August 14, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Well, that’s not true.
I’ve e-mailed her, and Bryan, a couple of times about some of the the things you’ve posted, and I’ve never heard back even once. It wasn’t anything too snarky, just voicing my displeasure at some of your Religion based smears and a few of your apologist posts (similar to this one). Alas, I’m just a “guest” (albeit, a guest who has in the past patronized a couple of HA’s advertisers in an effort to help support this site… got a couple of great t-shirts and a book!), or a peon, whichever your mood dictates AP.
SilverStar830 on August 14, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Allah, just admit you’re voting for Obama so we can end this!
RightWinged on August 14, 2007 at 4:28 PM
B.S.
Evry point you’ve made only makes sense if you ignore that O-man said the word “just” in “And that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.“
But the word is there. Makes it seem Afghanistan is being fought as though Air Marshall Billie Jeff were running things.
Honestly, the word “just” is there and it makes a difference – until it’s ignored.
Stephen M on August 14, 2007 at 4:30 PM
He’s not “smearing” the military and I wouldn’t be defending him if he was and you know it. Or maybe you don’t know it, actually; you’re calling him “Obama Hussein,” after all.
Allahpundit on August 14, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Some find it hard to believe that if a democrat opens his mouth he is not smearing the military.
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 4:31 PM
He is a demogogue. What he is saying is demogogery. Why is that not obvious to you???
Andy in Agoura Hills on August 14, 2007 at 4:32 PM
John “Three purple ouchies and I’m out of here” Kerry, now that is a democrat who smeared the military. Obama is no John Kerry.
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 4:32 PM
I can see possibly giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, but if there were 50k troops in Afghanistan, I would not be surprised to hear that he had said that there are too many soldiers in the country and that they were just roadblocking and shooting up civilian vehicles, which is causing enormous problems there. If Obama had been on the national stage in the past, then I would expect there to be some contradictory statements regarding the use of air power, especially in Kosovo.
rw on August 14, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Is your real name John Amato?
Andy in Agoura Hills on August 14, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Okay kiddies now consider the writer of the Assholiated Press article.
Nedra Pickler is known for her “Nit Picklering”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210867/posts
She’s making up with Barry because she questioned his “substance” a few months ago.
http://breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O4IP4G0&show_article=1&catnum=3
Brat on August 14, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Allah, just admit you’re voting for Obama so we can end this!
RightWinged on August 14, 2007 at 4:28 PM
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Allah, just admit you’re voting for Obama so we can end this!
RightWinged on August 14, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Waterboard him, that will get it out of him!!!!!
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 4:42 PM
If this is the best analysis you can offer, then anything you analyze is now suspect.
Andy in Agoura Hills on August 14, 2007 at 4:43 PM
“That person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor.”
– Ronald Reagan
Karl on August 14, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Have rosie waterboard him in a wet t shirt. That would get to any truth
William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Obama butt-smootches Osama. What a moron.
mcgilvra on August 14, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Have rosie waterboard him in a wet t shirt. That would get to any truth
William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 4:49 PM
My GOD!! Have some humanity!
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Everyone knows that your commentary is at least half the reason anyone comes here.
Bryan and Michelle are both great, and I miss seeing the Vents everyday, but I completely love your writing style. If others didn’t agree, I sincerely doubt they’d still be here.
Besides, when someone is biased towards a political party, I think it’s better if that person is actually harder on that particular party. I’m not saying that you’re doing that here, just that I’d be fine even if you were.
Esthier on August 14, 2007 at 4:58 PM
“That person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor.”
– Ronald Reagan
Karl on August 14, 2007 at 4:49 PM
“May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America.
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Very apt.
Esthier on August 14, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »