Karzai endorses strict new “code of conduct” proposed by Afghan Muslim clerics

posted at 9:35 pm on March 8, 2012 by Allahpundit

I guess he figures that if the country will be back in Taliban hands soon enough, he might as well get ahead of the curve. Maybe when they’re back in power they’ll even keep him on as a figurehead president, a bridge to the west so that NATO countries can’t cut ties with Afghanistan in protest of Taliban rule as easily as they otherwise might.

Last week, Mark Steyn wrote at NRO, “Six weeks after the last NATO soldier leaves Afghanistan, it will be as if we were never there… America’s longest war will leave nothing behind.” Not true. Karzai might still be there, busily rubber-stamping each new proposal to restore the country to its glory days of late summer 2001.

President Hamid Karzai’s Tuesday remarks backing the Ulema Council’s document, which allows husbands to beat wives under certain circumstances and encourages segregation of the sexes, is seen as part of his outreach to insurgents like the Taliban…

Among the rules: Women should not travel without a male guardian and women should not mingle with strange men in places like schools, markets or offices. Beating one’s wife is prohibited only if there is no “Shariah-compliant reason,” it said, referring to the principles of Islamic law.

Asked about the code of conduct at a press conference in the capital, Karzai said it was in line with Islamic law and was written in consultation with Afghan women’s groups. He did not name the groups that were consulted…

The exception for certain types of beatings also appears to contradict Afghan law that prohibits spousal abuse. And the guidelines also promote rules on divorce that give women few rights, a real turnaround from pledges by Karzai to reform Afghan family law to make divorces more equitable, Barr said.

Ignoring pledges is Karzai’s forte. If you’re not sufficiently enraged and depressed already, go read this NYT piece about how Afghanistan’s endemic corruption remains as endemic as ever, thanks in part to Karzai continuing to look the other way despite promising to end the “culture of impunity” at an international summit next year. Literally no one has been prosecuted for graft, even though Petraeus’s team compiled damning evidence against an Afghan general and handed it to Karzai to make things easy. And the punchline, of course, is that there’s nothing we can do: The more we alienate him, the more headaches we’ll have during our vaporous, halting peace talks with Pakistan and the Taliban. He and his government are too big to fail, even though they will fail once we’re gone, and realistically there’s no one better to replace him with. Says military expert Anthony Cordesman, “If you find people who aren’t corrupt, it is largely because they haven’t had the opportunity.” We tried to build a kinda sorta quasi-modern-ish state on a tribalist, mostly illiterate Islamist culture, and here we are. No wonder David Warren’s thrown in the towel.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

It doesn’t other than your whining shows how thin your skin is…we all bleed Red…don’t we?

dmann on March 8, 2012 at 11:47 PM

I’m not sure what your point is with all of this ‘pigment’ stuff, but just to clear things up, the Afghan people are Caucasian, not Arab/Semitic. They’re genetic cousins to the Persians and, I suppose, to many of us descended from Europeans. I’m guessing the Nazis would’ve considered them proto-Aryans of some kind, given the German mania for categorization of everything. My point is the Afghans are not ‘people of color’, so no one could claim this is some racial thing.

Anyway, bombs don’t care about skin color or ethnicity. In the future, should a country commit an act of aggression against us, such as harboring terrorists or otherwise causing us harm, I suggest we kill their leaders, reduce their military to the level of rocks and pointy sticks, and cripple their economic potential for the next three generations. Sowing the earth with salt might work, too. It’s what the Romans did to the Carthaginians. They haven’t proved troublesome since.

No more attempts at nation-building. We’ve tried. It doesn’t work.

troyriser_gopftw on March 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Behold the mind numbing power of pigment…….thats all that matters!

dmann on March 8, 2012 at 11:05 PM

I’m stating that anything, anywhere thats anti american rules…….we give ground just because our enemies don’t look like us…….regardless of their stated intent.

dmann on March 8, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Here you go.

Go back and read what was posted this time, then get back to me.

KMC1 on March 9, 2012 at 12:04 AM

sharrukin on March 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM

KMC1 on March 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Where and how you pointed to our bravest is beyond me and how I disrespected them in anyway I fail to grasp. Regardless, I’ll afford you the benefit of MY doubt. Please understand; race is a most powerful weapon that is used to divide regardless of shared life/beliefs/commitment. If all that matters is pigment then all is lost, as such my reference to blood should tell you how I live.

dmann on March 9, 2012 at 12:10 AM

That’s terribly simplistic don’t you think?!?! Or did we stop being a democratic republic and become a monarchy?!?!?!

KMC1 on March 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM

No, it’s not terribly simplistic. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with the monarchy nonsense, but maybe if you use more punctuation marks, it might get through.

Dante on March 9, 2012 at 12:12 AM

So we’re back to the beginning.
Nuke em. Nuke em and be done with it.

EZnSF on March 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM

No, it’s not terribly simplistic. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with the monarchy nonsense, but maybe if you use more punctuation marks, it might get through.

Dante on March 9, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Obviously, you don’t understand how our government works. But it’s nice to see you parroting the talking point.

KMC1 on March 9, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Obviously, you don’t understand how our government works. But it’s nice to see you parroting the talking point.

KMC1 on March 9, 2012 at 12:20 AM

I think your antennae is out of whack. You have been out of tune this entire thread, and have not been making any sense from the start.

Dante on March 9, 2012 at 12:24 AM

That’s terribly simplistic don’t you think?!?! Or did we stop being a democratic republic and become a monarchy?!?!?!

KMC1 on March 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM

No, it’s not terribly simplistic. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with the monarchy nonsense, but maybe if you use more punctuation marks, it might get through.

Dante on March 9, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Think about it. Just how did these Dictators get in power. Well fact is we understood up until the 1960′s peace movement that Muslims were pure evil SOB’s that would terrorize us pirate our ships and cause us all kinds of trouble if they were not rulled over by a dictator friendly to the West. That is why we put them in power. We did all we could to isolate these Muslim countries because we understood Islam for what it was. Islam has caused us problems since the 1700′s and the rest of the west far longer than that. Islam is 100% incompatible with peaceful relations with anyone even other slightly different muslim nations.

Well the “peace movement” rewrote everything.

War (at least successful war) targets primarily civilians. Yes that is right civilians. You can not really win a war targeting soldiers. Civilians easily replace the dead soldiers. But kill enough civilians and those left force their government to surrender.

Even in the early 60′s we thought it was great that Israel would kill 100 Palistinians for every Israeli killed. It really put a damper on suicide bombers and such.

This is why we lose wars now. We have been handcuffed by the left to such an extent that it is impossible to ever win a war.

World War 2 was won by fire bombing Dresden and Berlin. In the east we killed far more fire bombing Tokyo than the Atomic Bombs killed. Civilians were the primary target. Killing them won the war.

Steveangell on March 9, 2012 at 12:26 AM

We have fully entered the twilight zone.

Dante on March 9, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Dante on March 9, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Nice try.

The fact that my skin pigment was invoked as some sort of salient point works for you, but my bemoaning the fact that our leaders have wasted tens of thousands of lives doesn’t reasonate with you.

And you think I’m out of tune.

Nice.

KMC1 on March 9, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Think about it. Just how did these Dictators get in power. Well fact is we understood up until the 1960′s peace movement that Muslims were pure evil SOB’s that would terrorize us pirate our ships and cause us all kinds of trouble if they were not rulled over by a dictator friendly to the West. That is why we put them in power. We did all we could to isolate these Muslim countries because we understood Islam for what it was. Islam has caused us problems since the 1700′s and the rest of the west far longer than that. Islam is 100% incompatible with peaceful relations with anyone even other slightly different muslim nations.

Well the “peace movement” rewrote everything.

War (at least successful war) targets primarily civilians. Yes that is right civilians. You can not really win a war targeting soldiers. Civilians easily replace the dead soldiers. But kill enough civilians and those left force their government to surrender.

Even in the early 60′s we thought it was great that Israel would kill 100 Palistinians for every Israeli killed. It really put a damper on suicide bombers and such.

This is why we lose wars now. We have been handcuffed by the left to such an extent that it is impossible to ever win a war.

World War 2 was won by fire bombing Dresden and Berlin. In the east we killed far more fire bombing Tokyo than the Atomic Bombs killed. Civilians were the primary target. Killing them won the war.

Steveangell on March 9, 2012 at 12:26 AM

+100

Absolutely agree with everything you said except I might suggest the west started losing our nerve before the 60′s.

sharrukin on March 9, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Yes we have……save yourself, good luck!

dmann on March 9, 2012 at 12:31 AM

We have lost both wars.

All those soldiers died in vain.

America has learned nothing.

America is lost when you can not even chant USA after winning a basketball game. They chanted this after every win not just that one. The Mexicans were the racist chanting White Alamo. But they white players were disciplined for chanting USA sickening.

America deserves all the punishment it gets.

I will stand as a witness.

Steveangell on March 9, 2012 at 12:34 AM

sharrukin on March 9, 2012 at 12:30 AM

I was a child in the 60′s so I defer to you. I do remember my parents back then talking about America falling even then though.

Steveangell on March 9, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Nice try.

The fact that my skin pigment was invoked as some sort of salient point works for you, but my bemoaning the fact that our leaders have wasted tens of thousands of lives doesn’t reasonate with you.

And you think I’m out of tune.

Nice.

KMC1 on March 9, 2012 at 12:29 AM

No one said anything about your skin pigment. I said you’re out of tune because people are talking about one thing, and you think they’re talking about something else. Your reading comprehension is failing you.

Now, let’s get a couple of things clear. This ridiculous, disastrous nation-building is on Bush’s shoulders, not Obama’s and not Congress’. That the president was acting as commander in chief AFTER Congress has authorized force/declared war does NOT make our government a monarchy.

Dante on March 9, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Yep

dmann on March 9, 2012 at 12:41 AM

That the president was acting as commander in chief AFTER Congress has authorized force/declared war does NOT make our government a monarchy.

Dante on March 9, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Yup.

But we are now. Obama did not go to Congress and today Holder told Congress to suck rocks Obama would never go to Congress but might inform them. Obama will go to the UN and NATO though.

That and the illegal appointments and many other things King Obama has done makes us a Dictatorship. Obama even brags about just doing it on his own. He is thumbing all of us in the face.

Steveangell on March 9, 2012 at 12:41 AM

I was a child in the 60′s so I defer to you. I do remember my parents back then talking about America falling even then though.

Steveangell on March 9, 2012 at 12:36 AM

It was under siege but what surfaced at that time in the hippie movement and other cultural events developed from seeds planted earlier. Guys like Obama aren’t a new phenomena.

sharrukin on March 9, 2012 at 12:43 AM

No one said anything about your skin pigment. I said you’re out of tune because people are talking about one thing, and you think they’re talking about something else. Your reading comprehension is failing you.

Dante on March 9, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Obviously you haven’t actually read the thread.

And Bush was ONE component in the government. Not THE government. While I agree he was wrong and an idiot to step into this pile, he wasn’t the ONLY person involved. I hold our Congress responsible as well.

Steveangell; I couldn’t agree more with 99% of what you wrote, by the way.

KMC1 on March 9, 2012 at 12:46 AM

All the piss and vinegar of Fall 2001 amounted to nothing. The fact is, for all the roaring about neocon cabals, America doesn’t fight wars, for any reason. Even with over 90% support for a war, we get hearts-and-minds and targeted regime change.

We should have killed them all until they begged us to stop.

HitNRun on March 9, 2012 at 12:47 AM

Steveangell on March 9, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Obama is a criminal and should be prosecuted as such. That said, I am not a insufferable ideologue, facts/honesty/intellect will always carry the day. Dante is a patriot, we may disagree on issues but we believe in America.

dmann on March 9, 2012 at 12:50 AM

War (at least successful war) targets primarily civilians. Yes that is right civilians. You can not really win a war targeting soldiers. Civilians easily replace the dead soldiers. But kill enough civilians and those left force their government to surrender.

This isn’t actually true, but it’s close enough in this case.

A victorious war is one in which you take away the enemy’s ability to project force. Very often, this can be done by simply killing enemy soldiers, and sometimes – theoretically – barely even that.

But in a struggle of civilizations, of cultures – a struggle exemplified by this post – civilians have to be killed, because the threat to the US is not one regime’s expansionist ambitions. The threat lies in the fact that the citizens of Afghanistan either support Islamic terrorism in the United States or support the legitimacy of a Talibani government which itself aids and abets terrorism in the United States.

Neither scenario is acceptable to Americans. More to the point, neither scenario is worth the lives of Afghan civilians to Americans. We shirked our responsibilities as a nation state to defend our people at any cost, and within a decade, we’ll likely pay the price. Again.

HitNRun on March 9, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Afghanistan is basically a no man’s land of fiefdoms and tribes. But it wasn’t impossible to deal with successfully if we had done it right.

The ONLY way to success was by controlling what came in from Iran and Pakistan. The northern provinces were and are our only real allies, the bad guys are kept supplied from the east and west. We’ve punted on Iran since the phony/incompetent 2006 publication of the Intelligence Assessment (that they had suspended working on nukes), and completely screwed up in Pakistan after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in late 2007. But we had been mismanaging everything since before Musharraf became a marked man.

If we had acted like we were at war instead of in some weird geopolitical game, we would have cut off the Taliban and other warring tribes’ supplies and starved them out. You can’t play war nice.

Adjoran on March 9, 2012 at 1:39 AM

We should leave Afghanistan NOW!

Pragmatic on March 9, 2012 at 2:53 AM

Devil’s Advocate:

Karzai probably recognizes how inconstant an ally the US is (under Obama).

Karzai probably recognizes that Obama coddles dictators not democracies.

Karzai probably realizes that 2012 is an election year and Karzai has probably looked under Obama’s bus and seen himself looking back.

Karzai probably knows the history of America’s withdrawal from Vietnam. You know, when the US anti-war crowd was so proud of “stopping the killing” that they helped the killing of millions more? Group hug everyone.

Karzai probably realizes that even if a Republican is elected President of the United States that he (Karzai) will still get shafted…the mysteriously absent-for-the-last-three-years American anti-war crowd will come shrieking and howling back to the fore like the Dante’s suicide harpies if a conservative becomes President. See Vietnam above.

Karzai knows the score and he know reality.

I am not happy about it, but like I said, Devil’s Advocate.

Montana on March 9, 2012 at 3:06 AM

And thus we come full circle regarding this chapter on the war on terror….

Personally, I wish we could just Rome Plow the whole place down.

Whenever terror is traced back to the Taliban, we should respond with devastating surgical punitive expeditions.

Let this be American policy.

Change we can believe in!

Sherman1864 on March 9, 2012 at 4:56 AM

“Karzai” Rules of Engagement (US concocted Policy)
“Karzai” Code of Conduct (Muslim Clerics)

…meanwhile

The Obama Administration’s Bold but Risky Plan to Make Africa Gay-Friendly

…so much for “humanitarian” American foreign policy, foreign aid, and foreign wars.

As per calling Karzai corrupt, WE MADE HIM, and it proves that tax funded bribes do NOT “win the hearts and minds of the enemy” even when the US Military comes to the (American administration) rescue. There is no such thing as nation building. America did not “nation build” Japan or Europe after WWII. We DID fund their reconstruction. But they were already nations with strong national identities — so strong that they meant to monopolize the world.

Our government is so damned corrupt, that the citizens’ attention is diverted abroad in order to vent whatever at “them” instead of our own politicians and officials.

The Republican Party is so damned corrupt, it vies with Chicago in “fixing” electoral results.

Judge corruption as if without corruption, casting first stones?

Voodoo kinetic action. We never should have sent our Military into Afghanistan, particularly not to “nation build” especially given the Reagan administration funding of the very forces now meant to be annihilated. The Vietnam and Korean Wars were also fought POLITICALLY for naught, except to kill and maim and disillusion another generation…GLOBALLY.

Just how much abuse is “legitimate” from our own Constitutional Republic before Americans vote LIBERTY?

maverick muse on March 9, 2012 at 7:07 AM

I suggest we kill their leaders, reduce their military to the level of rocks and pointy sticks, and cripple their economic potential for the next three generations. Sowing the earth with salt might work, too. It’s what the Romans did to the Carthaginians. They haven’t proved troublesome since.

Actually, they have. They were a serious problem as pirates in the Mediterranean through the Middle Ages into early modern times, and Jefferson had to tangle with them. More recently they sponsored the Lockerbie bombing, and have generally been a supporter of Islamic extremists around the world.

Okay, seriously: the Romans actually integrated Carthage into Roman civilizations. St. Augustine was of Carthaginian stock, for example. Unfortunately, North Africa was lost to Europe during the initial Muslim expansion, and have been nothing but trouble since.

I wish we could do with Afghanistan what Rome did with Carthage. But as others here have said, we no longer have the will.

Bartrams Garden on March 9, 2012 at 8:11 AM

No one said anything about your skin pigment. I said you’re out of tune because people are talking about one thing, and you think they’re talking about something else. Your reading comprehension is failing you.

Dante on March 9, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Obviously you haven’t actually read the thread.

And Bush was ONE component in the government. Not THE government. While I agree he was wrong and an idiot to step into this pile, he wasn’t the ONLY person involved. I hold our Congress responsible as well.

KMC1 on March 9, 2012 at 12:46 AM

You can lead a horse to water…

Dante on March 9, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Karzai will bug out before the last NATO troop leaves. Afghans call him the Mayor of Kabul for a reason. I suspect he ends up in some place like England, living out his golden years on all the money he bilked the American tax payer out of – through graft and corruption.

I believe we have left something in Afghanistan that is valuable – ribbons of highways behind in Afghanistan. Given Afghans primitive culture, and common use of transportation -donkey carts, who uses these highways? The Chinese they are stripping Afghanistan of any thing of value, minerals etc…The Chinese aren’t stupid enough to attempt nation building in tribal Afghanistan.

Afghans’ best hope for their future might be right under their feet.
In the six years since the Ministry of Mines began putting its house in order, it has signed only one international contract—a $2.7 billion deal with the Chinese MCC-Jiangxi Copper Consortium for development of the Aynak deposit.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 8:45 AM

So we are getting our brave troops killed and injured so these pigs can slap their women around. Really?

Hummer53 on March 9, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Donald Trump was right. Americans are stupid we are making lousy deals and the Chinese are taking advantage of us left and right.

This is what Afghanistan has that the Chinese are mining and removing Cooper 274.0 the Chinese are the only ones with a contract.

We made it easy for the Chinese when we built the highway system in Afghanistan to connect the Afghan provinces together- which I am guessing helps the poppy farmers too.

It’s not just that we poured American tax payer money into nation building in Afghanistan – at the American tax payer expense SEE corrupt Karzai government. We made it easy for other countries for example China, to exploit Afghanistan’s natural resources – benefit monetarily from our failed attempt at Nation Building.

Afghanistan the graveyard of empires.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 9:43 AM

So we are getting our brave troops killed and injured so these pigs can slap their women around. Really?

Hummer53 on March 9, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Slapping their women around never stopped. If you were an American or coalition troop in Afghanistan, and you witnessed a man beating a woman you were not to intervene. The British are right Americans are freakin parochial. This is their culture, it’s not going to change we are not going to westernize Afghanistan. The real question is why would we ever bother?

You should never try to teach a pig to sing, it’s a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Costly Afghanistan Road Project Is Marred by … – New York Times

35 in Afghan Road Crew Die in Paktia Province Attack – NYTimes.

UAE-UK in Afghan highway project – Emirates 24/7

Afghanistan road project a study in cost, corruption – Boston.com

Afghanistan’s Gardez-Khost Highway A Parable Of Failed U.S. ..

Completion Report: Afghanistan: Andkhoy-Qaisar Road Project

Afghan Road Project Shows Bumps in Drive for Stability – WSJ.com

NATO in Afghanistan – Silk Highway project (Science for Peace and

2nd Carriageway of Torkham-Jalalabad Road (TJR) Project ..

Welcome to USAID/Afghanistan | afghanistan.usaid.gov
afghanistan.usaid.gov/
The Afghanistan Mission of the U.S. Agency for International Development. … Afghan Widows Find Employment: A social marketing project creates jobs and a life-sustaining income for widows. Read full article …. Great Masood Road Kabul ..

We have left something behind in Afghanistan. File this under the law of unintended consequences. Everyone should remember this when they start feeling sorry for those poor Afghans.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 9:54 AM

You know, I keep waiting to see an ad for someone who wants to go all The Man Who Would Be King over there. If you didn’t limit yourself with morals and ROE, taking over the place should be pretty easy. Would need someone ruthless, though. Maybe Trump?

GWB on March 9, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Last week, Mark Steyn wrote at NRO, “Six weeks after the last NATO soldier leaves Afghanistan, it will be as if we were never there…

That simply isn’t true. When we were bombing Afghanistan back in 2001 they didn’t have the highway system they do today at what cost to American tax payers $$$. The rationale was to connect the provinces for Afghan’s national security. That’s not what they will be used for once we are gone.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Wars seldom produce the outcome desired by those who beat the drum, and the longer the war, the more likely that the result is going to be both unpredictable and undesirable.

Added to all the usual historical uncertainties is the one uniquely American contribution to the art of war: the lawyer.

Oh, sure, there’s been laws of war for centuries, and even periodic efforts at outlawing war completely, but we’ve taken the concept to its logical conclusion, producing a form of combat as procedurally labyrinthine as the Internal Revenue Code.

We now have a military whose capability is nearly irrelevant because we cannot afford to operate it. We have a concept of warfare that values process over result.

That’s Bush’s unfortunate legacy in this whole thing: his definition of ‘victory’ was absurd and unreachable.

JEM on March 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM

On our way out as the last soldiers leave their last act should be to drop a cluster of a hundred bombs on the Presidential Palace as a going away gift. We should make sure Karzai is present for the gift.

{^_^}

herself on March 9, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Are neocons finally learning?

EddieC on March 9, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I hope we never leave Afghanistan, because that would be like, so isolationist.

EddieC on March 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM

And yet we are still propping up the corrupt drug-lord gangster Karzai brothers, losing soldiers, and hemorrhaging cash to win ‘hearts and minds’ and create a wonderful western style democracy in that hell hole.

What a waste.

CorporatePiggy on March 9, 2012 at 11:13 AM

And yet we are still propping up the corrupt drug-lord gangster Karzai brothers, losing soldiers, and hemorrhaging cash to win ‘hearts and minds’ and create a wonderful western style democracy in that hell hole.

What a waste.

CorporatePiggy on March 9, 2012 at 11:13 AM

The price we have paid in Afghanistan equals the most expensive hunting license in history. What was is the United States purpose in Afghanistan? To defeat Al Qeada and make sure they can’t use Afghanistan as a staging ground for their terror activities directed at the United States and our allies. We are basically paying a tribute in aid $$$ to occupy Afghanistan to hunt Al Qeada. The truth is although the Taliban is ruthless and vicious and their form of justice is barbaric, they are still less corrupt than the present Afghan government. It’s not Karzai that the United States should be negotiating with it’s the Taliban. A treaty that states, there will be repercussions if they harbor terrorist in Afghanistan now or in the future period.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 11:23 AM

After dealing with people like Karzai, the old CIA method of installing puppet dictators starts to look pretty good…..

tom on March 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Are neocons finally learning?

EddieC on March 9, 2012 at 10:32 AM

You know, every time that I see or read “neocon” – whether it’s used by a paulbot or some other type of leftist/fascist – it simply reminds me of how anti-American paulbots and other leftists are.
And it re-enforces my resolve to never – under any circumstances or for any reason – vote for ronpaul.

Solaratov on March 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Karzai sounds like one of Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers. We should take the lesson from Rush and tell Karzai to pound sand if he requests help in the future. If we catch them fomenting terrorist activities, we simply retaliate in kind until their country nothing but sand and goats.

ultracon on March 9, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Before some of you continue arguing for the extermination of the afghan people it should be noted that most Americans incorrectly believe the US attacked Afghanistan because the Taliban would not turn over Bin Laden. But that is enormously incorrect as can be seen bellow by just a small sample of the thousands of verified reports.

In 1999, the Taliban sent a group of 10 officers to replace bin Laden’s own bodyguards, touching off an exchange of gunfire, according to a New York Times story of Mar. 4, 1999. Three days later, bodyguards working for Taliban intelligence and the Foreign Affairs Ministry personnel took control of bin Laden’s compound near Kandahar and took away his satellite telephone, according to the U.S. and Taliban sources cited by the Times.

Taliban official Abdul Hakeem Mujahid, who was then in the Taliban Embassy in Pakistan, confirmed that the 10 Taliban bodyguards had been provided to bin Laden to “supervise him and observe that he will not contact any foreigner or use any communication system in Afghanistan,” according to the Times story. The Taliban was working with the U.S. so they would take Bin Laden off their hands.

The pressure on bin Laden by the Taliban in 1999 also extended to threats to eliminate al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan. An e-mail from two leading Arab jihadists in Afghanistan to bin Laden in July 1999, later found on a laptop previously belonging to al Qaeda in and purchased by the Wall Street Journal , referred to “problems between you and the Leader of the Faithful (Mullah Omar) ” as a “crisis”.

The e-mail, published in an article by Alan Cullison in the September 2004 issue of The Atlantic, said, “Talk about closing down the camps has spread.” The message even suggested that the jihadists feared the Taliban regime could go so far as to “kick them out” of Afghanistan.

After having Bin Laden arrested and his bodyguards killed Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, entered a phone conversation between a State Department official and one of his aides, and told the U.S. official he was unaware of any evidence that bin Laden “had engaged in or planned terrorist acts while on Afghan soil”. The Taliban leader said he was “open to dialogue” with the United States and asked for evidence of bin Laden’s involvement, according to the State Department cable reporting the conversation. Omar asked the U.S. for help in eliminating his Bin laden problem and even gave the coordinates to the U.S. for a missile strike. The Taliban had even offered to pay for the missile strike.

BBC,MSNBC, Reports that President Bush signed detailed plans for military operations in Afghanistan two days BEFORE Sept. 11

September 16, 2001: Taliban Said to Agree to All US Demands
A meeting takes place between Taliban and US government representatives in the city of Quetta, Pakistan. Afghan-American businessman Kabir Mohabbat serves as a middleman. Mohabbat explains that the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden, extradite foreign members of al-Qaeda who are wanted in their home countries, and shut down bin Laden’s bases and camps. However, some days later he is told the US position has changed and the Taliban must surrender or be killed.

Later in the month, the Taliban again agrees to hand over bin Laden unconditionally, but the US replies that “the train had moved.” [CBS News, 9/25/2001

"President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden" [Guardian 10/2001]
November 19, 2001: Rumsfeld Says US Does Not Want Taliban to Surrender, Does Not Want to Directly Take Prisoners [US Department of Defense, 11/19/2001; London Times, 11/20/2001]

JustTheFacts on March 9, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Next time we help with bombs first and bombs last.

Ukiah on March 9, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2